[CQ-Contest] Flashback - Is It Time?

Thu Apr 4 13:31:46 EDT 2013

Actually, that was a total typo error, and for that I apologize.  It 
should have read "it makes far more sense to limit operation (for the 24 
hour category) to a maximum of 24 hours but let participants chose which 
24 hours those may be."  That's consistent with my other recent posts 
where I've strongly disagreed with letting participants cherry pick 
their best 24 hours out of a longer operation.

But I also got a private reply from Jack, K3FIV where he clarified his 
recent proposal, and I think his suggestion makes the most sense of 
all.  In a nutshell:

1.  The contest remains at 48 hours, and of course the 48 categories remain.
2.  Two new 24 hour categories are added for SOAB and SOAB(A).
3.  EVERY contestant can operate as many hours as he likes ... whichever 
hours he likes ... but only contacts made during the first 24 hours of 
operation (not the first 24 hours of the contest) count for the new 24 
hour categories.
4.  For the 24 hour entries, any contacts made after the first 24 hours 
of operation still get submitted but count as checklog
5.  Off times for the 24 hour category must be at least 30 minutes or 60 
minutes or whatever ... I'm not picky on that point, although I think 30 
minutes would be consistent with other contests.
6.  Any participant would still have to declare which category they were 
entering at the time of log submission.

Under that scheme, anybody who is able to work longer than 24 hours is 
allowed to do so and provide contacts for everyone else, but they aren't 
allowed to cherry pick their best 24 hours after the fact. Anybody who 
wants to shoot for the normal 48 hour categories can still do so, but if 
unexpected circumstances arise that cut their operation short they have 
a second entry option.

So I'm honestly curious ... if the contest sponsors were willing to 
incorporate these two new categories into their log checking workload, 
what's the downside for anyone else individually or for the contest in 
general??   I don't see that there is one, and I certainly haven't heard 
a rational explanation of one yet.  It's not even difficult for an 
individual to parse their own log at 24 hours elapsed operation to see 
what their 24 hour score would be if they operated more than 24 hours.

73,
Dave   AB7E

On 4/3/2013 7:20 PM, Richard F DiDonna NN3W wrote:
> Oh really?  I thought the idea of a reduced hours category was that 
> folks cannot handle doing 48 hours and that 24 hours was the 
> alternative.  So now, its operate up to 48 hours and turn in your best 
> 24?  Good to see the moving goalposts are in effect.
>
> 73 Rich NN3W
>
>
> On 4/3/2013 9:28 PM, David Gilbert wrote:
>>
>> I strongly disagree.  The whole idea of a 24 hour category is to 
>> offer an option for participants to match their physical ability and 
>> sleep cycles to propagation and band activity.  Forcing anyone to 
>> operate 24 hours straight doesn't accomplish that in the least.  If 
>> we ever have a 24 hour category, it makes far more sense to limit 
>> operation to a maximum of 48 hours but let participants choose which 
>> 24 hours those may be.  Require that all off periods be at least 30 
>> minutes and be done with it.
>>
>> Nobody gains anything by requiring that the 24 hours be contiguous, 
>> and certainly not the folks who prefer to tough it out for the full 
>> 48 hours.
>>
>> Dave  AB7E
>>
>>
>>
>> On 4/3/2013 1:28 PM, Steve London wrote:
>>> Just let the operator choose any starting time. From that point, 
>>> they can operate for the next 24 hours, should they decide to be 
>>> even do that much.
>>>
>>> 73,
>>> Steve, N2IC
>>>
>>> On 04/03/2013 10:32 AM, Richard F DiDonna NN3W wrote:
>>>> Picking best 24 hours is pretty absurd IMHO. I'll just run the
>>>> statistical analysis of one hour chunks - or even one minute chunks 
>>>> - to
>>>> see which gives the best QSO and point ratio. i can guarantee you that
>>>> the big stations will win this one.
>>>>
>>>> Make it 24 hours straight and be done with it (not that I agree 
>>>> with any
>>>> 24 hour window at all). Of course, someone in the world is going to
>>>> complain that a particular start time is prejudicial for some reason.
>>>>
>>>> 73 Rich NN3W
>>>>
>>>> On 4/3/2013 10:38 AM, Edward Sawyer wrote:
>>>>> I can support this effort. Doesn't burden the sponsors yet and we 
>>>>> see who
>>>>> actually bellies up. I certainly hope that ALL of the vocal people on
>>>>> this
>>>>> reflector operated the CQ WW/ARRL DX both modes to show their
>>>>> dedication and
>>>>> commitment to operating and competing as much as rendering opinion.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I think that 30 min off times and 6 stages is too generous. Are we
>>>>> competing or just accommodating convenience? Need to decide which 
>>>>> it is.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I think that N4OGW's suggestion of "the best 24" as long as you
>>>>> operate at
>>>>> least 24 will be very demoralizing for this group. The best 24 f 
>>>>> the 40+
>>>>> crowd is likely as good or better than the best 24 for the 24 crowd.
>>>>> If you
>>>>> think any of us are sleeping or eating during that 24.you really 
>>>>> are not
>>>>> paying attention.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Ed N1UR
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>