[CQ-Contest] CQWW Contest Survey

[Pete Smith N4ZR]

Well said, Ed.  I agree with you in almost all respects.  The first 
question indeed gets to the heart of the matter, and I totally support 
your answer.

I might disagree slightly on the notionof weighting one's opinion solely 
by operating time.  Age has taken care of my ability to do 48, or 42 or 
even 24 hours(I'm *not* K3ZO or K0DQ), but if there were a 24-hour 
category in the big contests I would be tempted.

73, Pete N4ZR
Check out the Reverse Beacon Network at
http://reversebeacon.net,
blog at reversebeacon.blogspot.com.
For spots, please go to your favorite
ARC V6 or VE7CC DX cluster node.

On 3/9/2013 8:05 PM, Edward Sawyer wrote:
> First of all I would like complement Randy for the superb job of heading up
> CQWW and being interested to gather opinion.  For those of you asking.what
> survey?  Then unless Randy made a mistake, you didn't submit a log for CQWW.
>
>   
>
> There were 2 fundamental questions NOT on the survey which I think really
> captures my feeling and also addresses the classic sailboat/marathon
> analogies and the issues of combining the interests of 2 completely
> different groups of participants that need each other for everyone to have
> fun:
>
>   
>
> My first question:  The Contest Committee has come leaps and bounds through
> dedication and technology advances and investment - both of significant time
> and money - to advance the ability to catch people not following the rules.
> They have made changes to assist them in the accuracy of this (re: log what
> you transmit because we are recording so if something changed after it says
> something).  However like all great technological advances - the more we
> know the more we realize what we don't know or can't solve at the same level
> of accuracy.  Examples of this are things like power level, radius of
> station antennas, log changes on S & P Qs, and complete accuracy on the use
> of internet assistance.  Would you favor accepting this continually
> improving but far from perfect method but keeping the categories currently
> in place or would you favor changing any area that we do not feel we can
> completely referee to be merged into those that we feel we can?  To qualify
> your opinion, what is the most number of hours you have logged as an active
> participant in the contest and what is the average of the past 5 years for
> contests you have entered?  (Note if you were Multi-Op were you there for
> the entire contest and if you were single band - were you on for the entire
> band activity?)
>
>   
>
> My second question: Like a marathon or open golf tournament or ocean racing
> regatta, radiosport contesting consists of thousands of individuals
> participating.  Indeed in the latest CQ WW contests, over 5000 logs were
> submitted per weekend with many representing more than one person involved.
> It is safe to say that over 10,000 people are "involved" to some degree in
> CQ WW on one of its weekends.  Like anything in life, most are there for fun
> or personal motives.personal best, improvement, just to finish, just to
> participate etc.  Only a small percentage, typically less than 10% often
> less than 5% are actually IN for that weekend with an all out feeling of
> competition vs their peers (peers having different definitions depending on
> the event).  Would you be in favor of a "competition class" vs
> "participation class" ?  "Competition Class" would preserve the current
> categories but continue to increase safeguards for compliance some of which
> could require station recording, power monitoring etc and invoke a small
> participation fee to help fund the integrity for those so inclined and
> "participation class" would not provide such increased level of oversight
> but in fact increase the possibilities of "fun completion" among interest
> groups through the use of "slice and dice tools" of the contest logs through
> open log processing - ie "Black Hole QRPers" or "Bavarian Single Tower under
> 20m" or whatever.
>
>   
>
> In my opinion, these 2 questions get to the heart of the matter.  We cannot
> insure everyone out there is not cheating and/or bending the rules so we
> either homogenize it down to that which we can - which is essentially one
> power category, all assisted, one signal at a time vs more than one, and no
> restrictions on antenna circle/property/remote receiving or are we accepting
> continuous improvement and the love of the game for those in seriously and
> preserving it.  And are those in seriously willing to step it up to protect
> (including financially in the form of station monitoring like recording and
> a power monitor for example and possibly a small fee to help the monitoring
> cause to the benefit of all).
>
>   
>
> And finally, what do you view as seriously competitive in a contest like
> CQWW?
>
>   
>
> By the way, this example could be applied to other contests that you love
> like Sweepstakes, NAQP, WAE, WPX, ARRL DX etc.
>
>   
>
> My votes? For question one, keep them and accept they are not perfect but
> greatly improving over time.  My max is 45 hours and I average 42.  For
> question 2, yes I would opt in for competition class if it is the way to
> preserve the sport and to "belly up" with others if that is the majority
> opinion of those who are truly competing vs just having a lot of fun and
> that's it (which we all do from time to time).
>
>   
>
> Respectfully submitted.
>
>   
>
> Ed  N1UR
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>