[CQ-Contest] Comments on CQWW Rules

W0MU Mike Fatchett w0mu at w0mu.com
Thu Jun 26 19:54:52 EDT 2014

If the goal eventually is to make everyone id every contact, why the 
delay in including the callsign in the exchange.

You  W5OV
Me W5OV W0MU 599 T8
you W0MU W5OV 599 T8
Me W0MU or TU or EE or whatever

Or some variation of the above.

Mike W0MU

On 6/26/2014 10:14 AM, w5ov at w5ov.com wrote:
> 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.
> 73,
> 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
>> WPX
>> 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
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list