[CQ-Contest] CQ WW Rules Changes

[Barry]

I was there.  Randy said a number of guys were winding up with negative 
scores.  That certainly doesn't encourage long term participation by 
newbies.

Barry W2UP

On 5/23/2013 19:12, Richard F DiDonna NN3W wrote:
> 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
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>