[CQ-Contest] CQ WW Rules Changes

[Richard F DiDonna NN3W]

Bill, I wasn't at Dayton so I didn't get the chance to talk to anyone 
about the changes (you often get some pretty good insight after about 
10:00 pm on Friday or Saturday night).

While I agree that the leniency on busted calls -might- cause one to 
throw a bit more caution to the wind, I don't think there is concern 
about integrity of records.  The CQWW scoring is an ever-floating system 
- owing to the ever changing nature of multiplies.  When I first started 
contesting in the late 1980s, there were 321 entities on the DXCC list.  
There are now 340 - with many of those 19 new entities being ones that 
MOST stations can work on at least one band (the PJs, E7, OM, 9A, S5, 
and FJ). In the 2011 CQWW SSB test, those entities constituted probably 
30 entity mults that would not have been available to me in 1989. That 
represents close to half a million points in additional score.

I think the effect of new mults has a more pronounced effect on records 
than changing the penalty on busted QSOs - which for a good op is 
probably no more than 2% of one's score.

73 Rich NN3W

On 5/23/2013 3:54 PM, Bill Tippett wrote:
> I noticed this from today' s The Daily DX:
>
>> During the Contest forum at Dayton last weekend CQ WW DX Contest
> Director K5ZD, Randy Thompson, did an interesting presentation on the
> best contest in the world, the CQ World Wide. He mentioned several
> changes that will take place starting this year. The busted QSO
> penalty will change from the removal of three QSOs to the removal one
> (sic...
> probably meant to be "of") two. In addition the CQ WW Contest is working
> on new DQ criteria for dirty signals (i.e. wide signals, etc.). Full
> details are
> expected to be announced well before the contests.
>
> I'm surprised there's been no discussion of the busted QSO penalty change.  Was
> this the decision endorsed by the full committee?  IMHO this is one of the
> unique features of the CQ WW that encourages logging accuracy.  Changing
> the penalty from 3 QSOs to 2 may seem insignificant but it potentially
> violates the integrity and consistency of past records, which I feel should
> not be done without careful consideration and discussion.
>
> I applaud the move to DQ based on dirty signals.  With the advent of SDR
> spectrum recordings, I hope this can be enforced.
>
> 73,  Bill  W4ZV
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>