[CQ-Contest] Categories, Participation and Competition

[Warren C. Stankiewicz]

Bob, K0RC (Hi Bob!) wrote:

>I agree with the statements in the first paragraph. I have given up in a
pileup with that exact though, "the crowd will be thinner tomorrow and I'll
try for a contact then."

>I disagree with both parts of the second paragraph, specifically "To
shorten a contest". There is NO talk about shortening a contest. There
should be no rule changes. CQWW and ARRL DX remain a 48-hour event.

Ah, but when you make that option available, people will then use it. I view
this as an example of the law of unintended consequences. When you don't
know how long the other "rare" station is going to be workable, or even how
long you're going to be on, the mad salivating in the pileups to work a
given station is going to be just that much more intense. 

Not that I have anything wrong with pileups, mind you. However, as we all
know, the fiercer the pileup, the more the "small operator" gets chewed up
in the feeding frenzy.

>I disagree with this too. Here's a scenario 

[snip]

Bob, I see your point, but I think it draws the same conclusion--you're
working towards getting a higher score, and having a "limited time" category
just increases, at least in perception, the chance that the average operator
may come away with something. I'm not sure that's entirely accurate.

It also reminds me of when single band awards were first introduced to
VHF/UHF contests a few decades ago. Instead of allowing smaller stations to
simply contentrate on working on one band, it simply provided more rewards
and recognition for the stations who were already at the top of the game. It
was a self-serving move, and it's never really lived up to its potential.

We still need better ideas.

With malice towards none,

Warren, NF1J/K6KFC