[CQ-Contest] Multiple Contest Callsigns

Sat Feb 2 10:09:28 EST 2013

That can already be done now... Especially when the second call sign users
contact another ten or so non-competitive stations to show that the call
sign was just a casual op tuning the band and then became bored. I suppose
in a two hundred call push the contest sponsors could play detective and
determine that many of those calls were clubs or other household calls held
by the favored competitors club members.

Probably most of us have had a friend(s) that have gotten on the air to
find us and then hopefully worked some more stations to avoid complete
favoritism.

I have already seen myself plan family events on SS weekend to get some
points in with my family for CQ WW and to make up for Cal QSO Party. I do
this because I realize a full weekend in SS (for me) is boring. I can
simply be right by my family and devote four to six hours on Sunday as
fresh meat and have fun too.

I could of course already spend the weekend having a blast first say going
after the sweep with my call sign and submitting the log. Once the rate
goes down what is stopping someone from switching to a club call and
jacking up the rate without planning on a submitted log? You could do this
as many times as you want... If I am a serious competitor I will find these
new calls with my second radio or while S&P. Who doesn't benefit? Increased
activity and fun for all involved.

Add in a way to score the above scenario and you might have some like
myself actually doing it on a regular basis because now I know that I am
within the set rules. Or maybe just call the extra call signs valid for a
check log and condoned by the sponsor.

73,

Tim / N6WIN
HTTP://WWW.N6WIN. COM
 On Feb 2, 2013 4:59 AM, "Stan Stockton" <wa5rtg at gmail.com> wrote:

> The only downside I can see would be if a club with a hundred
> not-so-serious about winning members, for example, decided they would try
> to ensure victory for one of their members who was serious about winning.
>  If each of them had a second call sign they could switch to on Sunday, the
> potential would be created to double the impact of what could already be
> done now.
>
> Imagine 200 contacts, all on Sunday afternoon, in the log of a serious
> competitor with none of those call signs in the log of anyone else who has
> more than a thousand contacts.
>
> Stan, K5GO
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Feb 1, 2013, at 9:07 PM, Jimk8mr at aol.com wrote:
>
> > Thanks to K2AV for writing this for me.
> >
> > For years I've been doing SOMS - Single Op, Multi Station - in the CW SS.
> > That contest becomes really fun when the rate goes *UP* as the contest
> goes
> > on.
> >
> > Last year, needing another serious single operator entry for WRTC
> ranking,
> > I did a traditional one station effort from AC8E. I won the Great Lakes
> > Division, and was bored out of my mind after the first 14 hours or so.
> >
> > I don't understand the ARRL's phobia about the use of more than one  call
> > per transmitter or QTH (family stations exempted). It's not going to
>  prevent
> > manufactured contacts - somebody doing that simply would not send in a
>  log
> > for that call(s).
> >
> > CQ doesn't share the phobia, and I like it. In the recent CQ 160 contest
> I
> > started over the second night as W3USA, and was running 120 hours with
> low
> > power. It was a lot more fun than tuning around trying to keep the rate
> > above  40. I hope nobody I worked twice minded. (I also got back on for
> the
> > last  hour Sunday afternoon as K8MR, for another 40 or so QSOs. But I
> would not
> > object  to the concept of forbidding this).
> >
> > I would suggest a couple of variations on what K2AV suggested. I don't
> see
> > a need to limit an operator to 24 hours among the various calls. If he is
> > still  going strong at hour 24 at 0200z Monday, let him go. I don't see
> the
> > need  to limit it to two calls. And I don't see need for an off time when
> > switching calls,  But these are minor points.
> >
> > I sense that there are lots of people who by the end of SS (or other
> > contests) who know they aren't going to win and don't care. But they
> would have
> > a lot of fun as "fresh meat". And the rest of us contest carnivores
> would be
> > delighted to take what they offer.
> >
> >
> > 73  -  Jim
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > In a message dated 2/1/2013 7:26:15 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> > olinger at bellsouth.net writes:
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>