[CQ-Contest] Dumbing-Down Contests?

Wed Feb 27 21:22:19 EST 2008

The contest exchange in question, that is, for the DX side of the ARRL DX
contest, requires a small amount of skill to decipher.  Especially on CW,
when cut numbers and abbrevriations are the norm, there is a small challenge
to get it right the first time.

Granted, once you have worked a station (assuming you copied the exchange
correctly) you should know what it is if and when you work that station on
another band.  OTOH, you should not (and truly can not) assume that you got
it right the first time... because if you didn't, and you assume you did or
go with your software's prefill in lieu of copying it again, it can come
back to bite you.

And what are most of the exchanges?  K or KW or 1K for the kilowatt
stations, 100 or 1TT for the majority of the barefoot stations.  That
probably covers the vast majority.  Most of the rest are variations on the
theme... 200, 300, 400, 500, the occasional 250 or 750.  Then we have the
people who choose to be... well, some might say 'cute', some might say
'different' -- the 99 (NN) or 999 (NNN) stations, the occasional 50 or 75 or
some other unexpected number (I especially like the QRP guys sending 1 or 5
or 7 or any other number up to and including 10).

Some seem to have a problem with these.  (Personally, I don't, I think it
adds some much needed individuality and 'flavor' to the contest).  But that
is the challenge... isn't it?

So what is the problem that we're kicking around?  That some people don't
know how to send cut numbers, and in one specific case, sent AK instead of
1000?  So you had to take an extra minute to get it right.  That is part of
the game... right?  But -- once you got it right, the next time (if) you
worked him, then you knew what he was sending, right?  So what did it cost
you... 2 minutes?

People who are misusing cut numbers, or (presumably) accidentally sending
odd, unusual, or misleading ones, need to be educated.  If they are doing so
deliberately, to try and trip the contesters up, well that's a different
matter.

But instead, you and others are proposing that we dump the power output in
the exchange and replace it for something more generic, something easier --
like Q L H for QRP, Low & High Power, or SO MS MM for operating class, or
some combination thereof.  Which removes part of the challenge.  Why?

If you say it's because you want to streamline the contest exchange and make
it faster -- which I don't think this will to any significant extent -- then
say so.  But don't hide behind the excuse of a handful of poor or unknowing
operators who made you waste a whole minute copying a screwy cut number.
That's the wrong reason for considering this change.

And Paul, you say that the Big Time Contesters want to improve their scores?
Well, that will come in a few years when the sunspots return.  That's a
cyclic thing; you've been around, you know that.  Scores will improve when
propagation on the upper bands improves, when the bands open or open longer,
letting us work stations on more bands because we can hear them.

The other side of the coin, you see, is that if you are correct, and that
changing the exchange will make the QSO's go faster, you also run a real
risk of working everybody too quickly... and having few if anyone left to
work in the last few hours of the contest.  What's the significant
difference of making ~1000 QSO's with the old exchange in the full 48 hours,
and the same ~1000 QSO's with the new exchange in 40 hours?  (Not that I
think it would make that much of a difference, but still)

One last factor to consider is that some of us are relying too much on the
technology at hand.  Too many -- not all, not most, but some -- are taking
packet cluster spots verbatim as the call of the other guy, and not
listening; or assuming that the next SN will be sent in sequence, which is
not always the case (I particpated  a few years back in a multi-op that did
just that, send the SN's out of sequence on any given band, because the
software used a shared pool to generate the SN's), or assuming that the
correct power level was copied and stays the same on all bands.  Making
things too simple will make it easier for programmers to store the exchange
information for future use.  Which means that when W4ZE, who retired and
moved from PA back to FL (hi Ted!) lets his good friend N3ZK heads down
south to his station barefoot in the annual Hypothetical Contest, the poor
schmuck who has W4ZE TED PA KW stored is in for a rude surprise when he
doesn't bother to copy W4ZE RANDY FL 100.

Now:  Do you educate the schmuck in what he went do, or do you simplify the
contest exchange in the Hypothetical Contest so that the schmuck never has
to learn and stays a schmuck, just one with with a lot of contacts in the
log?

73

-----Original Message-----
From: cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com
[mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com]On Behalf Of Paul J. Piercey
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 7:09 AM
To: wn3vaw at verizon.net; cq-contest at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Dumbing-Down Contests?

Hi Ron,

How is having arbitrary exchange elements "challenging"? The fact that it is
being done by a small number of people now doesn't mean it won't increase in
the future.

Frankly, there have been suggestions to make the exchanges even more
challenging but that has had the same reaction... "if it ain't broke, don't
fix it". I believe that these suggestions haven't been considered fully
because of what Rick has stated, and I believe also: big time contesters
want increased scores and a challenging exchange has the potential to
undermine that.

Setting a standard for cut numbers is good for everyone. Personally, I would
like to see contesting be a battle of operator skill, not who can send
gibberish the fastest.

73 -- Paul VO1HE

-----Original Message-----
From: cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com
[mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Ron Notarius W3WN
Sent: February 26, 2008 23:11
To: cq-contest at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Dumbing-Down Contests?

So the solution to the misuse of cut numbers by a tiny handful of
contesters... is to simplify the exchange so as to not inconvenience, let
alone challenge, a participant?

-----Original Message-----
From: cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com
[mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com]On Behalf Of Eric Hilding
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 3:09 PM
To: cq-contest at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Dumbing-Down Contests?

Ron, W3WN, wrote:

>The ARRL DX Contest Exchange for DX Stations:  It ain't broke... or if you
will, it's not what's broken in the contest.  DON'T FIX IT.

The problem is that it's BROKEN, and here's why:

1.  Contests are now about RATES-RATES-RATES and SCORES-SCORES-SCORES (one
reason the hardware gets MORE-MORE-MORE).

2.  Contests are *supposed* to be for the contesting masses, not just a
select few elite {cough, cough}.  Therefore.

3.  Casual Contesters confronted with BIZARRE cut number creativeness at
38WPM simply CLOG UP THE RATE PIPELINE with Unnecessary REPEAT-REPEAT-REPEAT
requests, and delay others in-waiting from realizing their RATE-RATE-RATE &
SCORE-SCORE-SCORE Contesting Dreams (even if Fantasies).

Category power level designators of ONE standard letter vs. umpteen end-user
variations of cut number effluent complies with the Universal KISS-KISS-KISS
principle, and will solve this particular problem real quick.

73

Rick, K6VVA

_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest