[CQ-Contest] CQ WW Rules preview

Jack Haverty. k3fiv at arrl.net
Wed Jun 25 13:16:41 EDT 2014

The primary reason for resistance to the ID rule seems to be that more
frequent IDing would take time and therefore reduce your score.   Perhaps
it's worth thinking about how the rules might be structured so that more
frequent IDing would improve scores rather than reducing them, and thereby
encourage frequent IDs?

For example, right now a QSO which is a NIL results in a loss of that QSO
and one other.   But since most participants don't send in a log, many such
NILs are not detected and don't hurt the score at all.   It's a pinprick
penalty for your failure to communicate.

Consider the other extreme - where a single NIL would result in a
disqualification.   Getting a NIL would be a fatal penalty.

Somewhere between these extremes, an appropriate penalty for NILs would
encourage people to make especially sure that both you and the other guy
copied callsigns correctly.   Sending your callsign more frequently would
reduce your "NIL rate" and thereby improve your score.   Your contest
strategy would have to trade off the time spent in sending your call versus
the likelihood that the other guy didn't receive it accurately, by whatever

As a strawman -- perhaps a NIL should result in the loss of 2*(1/Nth) of
your overall score, where N is the number of Qs you logged.   Also, perhaps
that "NIL rate" should be computed to reflect the fact that many logs are
not submitted.

So if, for example, you log 100 Qs with one NIL, and only 50 of those other
stations submitted a log, your NIL rate would be 1/50 rather than 1/100.
This essentially assumes that if you got 1 NIL out of the 50 logged, you
probably also got 1 NIL out of the other 50 as well.   If you logged 100 Qs
worth 1 point each, and got 1 NIL out of 50 logs received, your score would
be 100*(1/50)*2 or 96.

If that's not enough of a penalty to make IDing important, just change the
numbers.   Let people optimize their behavior as they see fit to achieve
the best score, and let the score reflect their demonstrated ability to
communicate accurately and efficiently.

IMHO, radio contesting is about communications, and the metrics we use to
measure proficiency should reflect communications skills.   Communications
is about exchanging information, not just typing (or clicking on)
callsigns.   Getting the two-way information exchanged is the
responsibility of both ends of the QSO.   Scores should measure the
proficiency in doing that.

With all of the prefills, spotting networks, databases, and other such
tools in common use, there's very little left that we actually communicate
in the exchange of a typical contest.   The callsign is one of the last
pieces of information that we actually exchange.  It's the proof that we
actually communicated, even if it's not always communicated by radio.

If I know my score is going to be hit hard if I fail to communicate my
information to the other guy accurately, I'll likely try harder to make
sure he got it.

Isn't that what communications is all about...?

/Jack Haverty K3FIV K3FIV Kay Three Eff Eye Vee   QSL?

On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 9:03 AM, Randy Thompson K5ZD <k5zd at charter.net>

> A public preview period for the CQ WW DX Contest rules for 2014 is
> currently
> underway until July 1.  You can see the proposed rule changes at
> http://cqww.com/blog/?p=337
> While we enjoy and monitor the discussion here on the reflector, the best
> way to contribute feedback or questions is via the email address provided
> on
> the blog.
> 73
> Randy Thompson, K5ZD
> Director - CQ WW DX Contest
> web:  <http://www.cqww.com/> www.cqww.com
> Facebook:  <http://www.facebook.com/cqwwdx> www.facebook.com/cqwwdx
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list