[CQ-Contest] CQ WPX rules, it finally happened

Cqtestk4xs at aol.com Cqtestk4xs at aol.com
Sun Feb 2 14:40:32 EST 2014

A run of 6-8 would require you to sign 2 or 3 times a minute.   You say you 
sign 1-2 times a minute anyway.  In essence, you are signing  one more 
time.  KQ2M takes  a second to say. But lets's face it, we  big guns in the US 
don't have an hour of that kind of run.  Even from KH6,  my best hour was 
only 360.
We need to look at this through the eyes of the little guys who S/P  not 
just us big guns.
Bill K4XS
In a message dated 2/2/2014 7:34:30 P.M. Coordinated Universal Time,  
kq2m at kq2m.com writes:

ID every  3 q’s?


I am sure that the intention of rule “meant  well” but the practical as 
well as
unintended consequences will wind up  hurting most participants.

In short, this new rule penalizes the GOOD  op. and rewards the POOR op.!

Example:  Let’s say that I am having  a great run at 6-8 q’s per minute.
Normally I don’t ID more than once or  twice per minute when going at top 
because I am trying to MINIMIZE  the size of the pileup.  Why would I do 
Because a larger pileup  with more callers only slows down the rate per 
for myself and  everyone calling me.  Good ops know this.   

Under the  new rule I would be ID’ing every 20 – 30 seconds.  Should that
really  be a requirement?  Are people so impatient that it is critical
to ID  in that tiny space of time? 

It is NOT the sending of KQ2M that  meaningfully slows down the rates, it 
the issue of dealing with an  unruly pileup of loud stations calling on the 
same freq.  When  you send your call MORE often, you get MORE
callers, adding to the chaos  and QRM and slowing down the rate even more
for BOTH you AND the  callers!  Is this a good thing?  NO, It is definitely 
So,  under this new rule, I as a good opr at my best rate might have to ID 
every 20  – 30 seconds.  

Now let’s contrast this to the inexperienced opr.  or a poor opr.
who has a pileup and can’t seem to copy a call.  They  take maybe
1 – 2 minutes per qso.  Under this rule the opr. is now  required to ID
only every 3 – 6 minutes!  Is this disparity in ID’ing  helpful?  Does it 
even make sense?
Aren’t the rules supposed to be the  same for everyone?  

Regarding the practical aspects, how many  people are going to remember to 
count every three qso’s?
After you have  been up for 36 hours and are operating 2 radios, is someone
really going to  remember this?  What if they miscount?  What if they are  
cq’s on 2 bands?  Do you ID every three qso’s per band or  every three qso’

There are lots of important new rules that can be  created for any contest, 
but the point
is to improve the contest without  harming it in other ways, and that can 
only be accomplished
by enacting a  new rule that is easy to keep track of and adhere to, and is 
fair to  all.  
This new rule requiring an ID of every 3-qso’s will cause lots  of chaos 
and hurt most participants. 
That hurts the contest, the opposite  of what is intended.

With more frequent ID’s making the pileups bigger  and more unruly for rare 
(just imagine how many more times rare  stations will be spotted and 
the other ops will be be  spending more time calling IN pileups and less 
time actually  working
stations.  I’ll bet the result is fewer contacts for many and  more 
frustration, although there will
be no way to actually measure  this.  Given the endless calling in pileups 
that is affecting
all of  us now, I don’t see how adding still more unruly callers to a 
pileup is a net  plus for anyone.

This is similar to what happens when the IRS creates  new tax rules.  There 
is a problem that
they want to address and the  “solution” in the form of rules often 
is made by the people who are only  modestly familiar with the problem and
the difficulties that administering  the “chosen” solution will cause.  So 
the end result is new and   
unintended consequences that create other new and often big problems,  
which is PRECISELY
what will happen here.

Yes, lack of ID’ing in  contests is a big problem and really out of hand, 
among the POOR  ops – NOT the good ones!   This new rule will penalize 
good ops  (who usualluy exercise good judgment) by imposition of an 
arbitrary standard,  yet
will still allow and promote abuses by the poor ops.

If you want  to come up with a required ID standard, then base it on TIME, 
not QSO’s.
I  suggest, once per minute.  So it will address the ID problem, be easy to 
 keep track of and not penalize the good ops.  
One other  thing....  there are MANY contesters out there that actively 
participate  in many contests. 
Collectively, a large group of people active  participants (hundreds) can 
more effectively think of the pros and cons  of  
a particular rule change than can one person or a very small  group of 
people.   This should be obvious to all 
contest  managers and yet very few rule changes are ever publicly proposed 
in advance  with their stated purpose
and with a period allowed for comments.  I  don’t know whether this 
reflects hubris on the part of the contest manager(s),  
or lack of forethought, or other reasons.  But I DO know that rules  “fit” 
better and are more widely respected and
adhered to and make the most  sense when people have had the opportunity to 
think about, discuss and digest  them

If the goal is to make  the BEST rules possible for all, then the rule 
making process should allow for  adequate time for discussion 
and be INCLUSIONAL,  rather than  secretive, and autocratic.

Bob  KQ2M

kq2m at kq2m.com
CQ-Contest  mailing  list
CQ-Contest at contesting.com

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list