[CQ-Contest] Have NCCC and PVRC ruined SS?

[Guy Olinger K2AV]

Reads like, you can do anything, except the rules are off the table, so
basically you are talking about people selling the Sweepstakes.  Clubs will
for club competition.  But individuals to other individuals?  Folks do this
word of mouth thing and that's how good things grow.

But you take the rules entirely off the table and you hope the big clubs
are in there.  After that, you wanna pay money to advertise the SS on TV?

The biggest individually self-limiting aspect the contest has is
saturation.  Work out the stations and slow way down, but this encourages
"fresh meat" stations on Sunday that get a lot of attention.  At PVRC we
tell the guys that can only put in 5-6-7 hours to do it on Sunday, and run,
not S&P, and forget about chasing mults on spots.  If by increased
participation you mean total QSO count, that strategy works.

If someone could suggest a rule change, and this is partially allowed now,
but is a mechanical nightmare, and that is starting over with a new call
sign.  If you change stations and use "unused" transmitters you can do it
now.  NCCC used it extensively at one time.

You could ALLOW a second call sign to be used at the same station on the
same equipment by the same operator.  Once second call sign in use, log of
first call sign used by that op is frozen and can't be used again in the
contest.  Either call sign could only be used once in the contest and
cannot have overlapping start and finish times.  Stop of one and start of
the other must be separated by a legal off time (30 minutes currently)
 Think everything you need to enforce that is in the log.  With that rule
some of us in club competition would start Sunday morning with second call
sign.  The timing of the switch to maximize a club score would be a real
science.  A pair of logs from the same operator would be listed and scored
separately, eligible for awards only separately.  Separate log submission
to the robot.   The two logs combined subject to the 24 hour limit.  It
would sure change Sunday afternoon.  Let the clubs worry about how they
award their internal awards.

Those who want to max out for top scores and awards just keep doing what
they are doing.  Just more call signs to work overall.  "Double-signing"
would be optional and up to the individual.  Doesn't mess with records,
other rules, just allows an option that might make Sundays fun.

If you want to leave it to the operator whether they want to sleep or not,
then just say that the log of one call in a pair must have all its "on"
times entirely within the legal "off" times of the other, and all current
rules for time and max still apply to each log separately.  ARRL log
scoring program handle that easily.  Operators would restart logging
program on the other call.  Logging program coders would be asked to not
support instant call flipping.

The improvement in total score from an individual op's two logs would come
not so much from lack of sleep as it would from making Sunday meaningful
when you've operated hard on Saturday.

That's a rule change that wouldn't mess with scoring, records, awards, etc,
and would increase the total QSO count, especially on Sunday.  Clubs would
need to strategize.  But they're deep into that already.

Just a thought.

73, Guy.

On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 3:14 PM, Steve London <n2icarrl at gmail.com> wrote:

> Because it's simply not going to happen. If you want an SS-like contest
> where you can work stations on every band, then the NAQP is for you.
>
> 73,
> Steve, N2IC
>
> On 02/01/2013 01:11 PM, Alan M. Eshleman wrote:
>
>> Why are they off the table?
>>
>> 73, Alan/K6SRZ
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Steve London"<n2icarrl at gmail.com>
>> To: cq-contest at contesting.com
>> Sent: Friday, February 1, 2013 8:52:23 AM
>> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Have NCCC and PVRC ruined SS?
>>
>> To me, it's not the points contributed, it's the number of active
>> stations that matter. I'll define "active" as those stations who put in
>> 10 or more hours.
>>
>> As the author of the upcoming Phone SS writeup, I can say that it was
>> very disappointing to see the drop in activity in 2012. The decreased
>> emphasis by some clubs was a significant component of this drop.
>>
>> What can we do to increase activity ? Making drastic changes, such as
>> allowing the same station to be worked on each band, are off-the-table.
>>
>> 73,
>> Steve, N2IC
>>
>> On 01/31/2013 01:38 PM, Bill Haddon wrote:
>>
>>> Let's look at some actual numbers to assess the extent to which NCCC's
>>> not
>>> highlighting Sweepstakes influenced the Sweepstakes, over-all:
>>>
>>> For 2011 (one of the years cited by the K3KU message):
>>>
>>> Total points in Sweepstakes  CW:  ~85,000,000
>>>           Points from PVRC:                   10,113,000
>>>           Points from NCCC:                     7,970,000
>>>
>>> Suppose NCCC had emphasized SS and that NCCC tied PVRC:
>>>       Increase in Sweepstakes scores under this scenario:     ~2.6% of
>>> total
>>> SS CW points.
>>>
>>> It does appear that NCCC contributed a bit less in 2012 (can't tell
>>> easily
>>> since the CW and Phone scores are not individually summed in the NCCC
>>> database), but I'd guess NCCC generated about 6,000,000 CW points (but
>>> many
>>> members' scores went to MLDXCC).  So there might be about a 5% impact on
>>> overall Sweepstakes activity from our failure to stress the Sweepstakes
>>> in
>>> 2012.  A relatively small effect.
>>>
>>> 73 Bill n6zfo
>>> ______________________________**_________________
>>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>>> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
>>> http://lists.contesting.com/**mailman/listinfo/cq-contest<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<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<http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest>
>