[CQ-Contest] CQ WW Rules Changes

[jimk8mr at aol.com]

 I was not at the contest forum, but several observations:

1.? The issue was addressed in the recent CQWW survey. Might the change indicate that most people thought a 3 qso penalty was excessive?

2.? For operators of merely human abilities, callsign error rates are a function of how good you are at watching SuperCheckPartial. Not purely a matter of how well you copy stuff.

3.? I find that some of my errors are ones where I likely copied the call OK, but typed badly. (Especially on SSB where the computer does not send out what you type).

73?? -?? Jim?? K8MR


 



-----Original Message-----
From: Cqtestk4xs <Cqtestk4xs at aol.com>
To: cq-contest <cq-contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Thu, May 23, 2013 9:46 pm
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQ WW Rules Changes

 
 
 
This was brought up at the contest forum.  It was no surprise when  K5ZD  
brought up the fact that the top finishing stations had very low NIL while   
the ones lower in the rankings had much higher NILs.  It was explained,  from  
what I gathered, the reduction in penalties would encourage those guys to   
participate. 
  
Bill, I am in your camp.  3 points is not that high, especially when  the  
exchange is as simple as it is.  No need to copy the RST, and for 80%  of the  
stations the zone pops up for you.  All you have to do is copy the  call.   
Duh!  Dumbing down of the contest! 
  
But, it is CQ's contest and they can run it anyway they want. 
  
Bill K4XS 
  
  
In a message dated 5/24/2013 12:39:39 A.M. Coordinated Universal Tim,   
btippett at alum.mit.edu writes: 
 
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