[CQ-Contest] Comments on CQWW Rules

w5ov at w5ov.com w5ov at w5ov.com
Thu Jun 26 12:14:02 EDT 2014

KK9A's perspective on this is well-informed, and correct.

The proposed wording of the rule leads one to id-ing often without setting
a specific parameter to be measured.  I think this is appropriate to allow
for the judgement of the operator rather than set a specific #.

Those who don't id often enough are shooting themselves in the foot.


Bob W5OV

On Wed, June 25, 2014 11:52 am, john at kk9a.com wrote:
> Regarding the WPX contest, the ID rule was already enacted before most of
>  us had a chance to give our opinion. I doubt any feedback after the
> contest would change things and by then it was old news. I personally did
>  not care for the WPX 3 qso ID rule. There were definitely times during
> CW when I heard another weaker station calling but after being forced to
> ID the new group of stations drowned him out. These weaker station had to
> wait longer to work me and some may have just QSYed. If an identification
> rule is desired, the CQWW proposed rule "6. Running stations not
> identifying in a timely manner (i.e., 1 minute)." is very reasonable. I
> know that K5ZD spent time getting various personal opinions on this
> beforehand and the rule seems to be a good compromise for both running
> stations and S&P.
> 73,
> John KK9A aka P40A
> To:	 "cq-contest at contesting.com" <cq-contest at contesting.com>
> Subject:	 Re: [CQ-Contest] Comments on CQWW Rules
> From:	 Michael Adams <mda at n1en.org>
> Date:	 Tue, 24 Jun 2014 17:15:15 +0000
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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