[CQ-Contest] Comments on CQWW Rules

Michael Adams mda at n1en.org
Tue Jun 24 13:15:15 EDT 2014

Did anyone tally the feedback made _after_ WPX about stations that felt they were more/less disadvantaged because of the ID requirement, or stations that that found the contest more/less fun because of the rule change?

To be honest, I don't remember much post-contest feedback one way or the other; I just remember a lot of fuss when the change was announced.

While I think that a strong argument could be made that ID frequency is a strategy choice that could be of concern between competitive stations in a close race, I also think that a stronger argument could be made that having running stations ID more frequently might enhance the enjoyment of little guns or casual operators who fill the logs of the competitive stations.

Personally, I don't think that the proposed rule change is the end of the world.  But I'd play in the contest and have fun regardless of whether the change was made.    Others' mileage may vary.

Michael Adams | N1EN | mda at n1en.org

W0MU wrote:

> The aim is gain two way contacts?    I thought it was to work as many
> people as possible and as many mults.  Pileup control is done by giving callsigns.
> So in an effort to placate the I NEED IT NOW  society a rules change has been
> made to remove a viable strategy from a run station so that S&P stations can
> get a call or verify a call faster.
> The next rule change we need is that everyone gets a shiny trophy and we have
> no winners and losers..................

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list