[CQ-Contest] Comments on CQWW Rules

K4XS via CQ-Contest cq-contest at contesting.com
Thu Jun 26 16:42:47 EDT 2014

I think the IDing is a great idea.  However, they need to be  SPECIFIC 
about the rule.  "i.e. once every minute" is NOT specific.  A  given time, or 
number of QSOs is.
Bill K4XS
In a message dated 6/26/2014 4:27:41 P.M. Coordinated Universal Time,  
w5ov at w5ov.com writes:

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  
>  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

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

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list