[CQ-Contest] Modified Proposed Rule Changes

[Randy Thompson K5ZD]

I don't normally answer these types of questions on the reflector, but in
the interest of speeding things up...  see below.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of
> Dennis McAlpine
> Sent: Monday, May 25, 2015 4:54 PM
> To: cq-contest at contesting.com
> Subject: [CQ-Contest] Modified Proposed Rule Changes
> 
> Randy, thanks to you et al for listening and assessing all the
> commentary.
> I still have a few nits that I will add.
> 
> 
> 
> Frequency - I think you need to clarify "frequency" a bit more carefully.
> The current wording of "actual frequency" could be defined as just band
> info, e.g. "14" or "21".  How about making it "actual frequency plus or
> minus 1 KHz".?
> 

ZD> The Cabrillo specification requires frequency to 1 KHz.  If we only
wanted the band, we would have said frequency band.

> 
> 
> QSO Alerting Assistance - I think the intent is to allow SCP, lists, etc.
> Why not call those "passive" assistance and allow their use specifically?
>
 
ZD> How about we call this "QSO Finding Assistance"?  Something is
assistance if it helps 

Here is a good way to think of it (from a private email I received):
"The implication of the rules [is] that ... extracting information from
signals by using your senses and brain are to be considered unassisted (e.g.
tuning around and hearing signals), whereas automatically (e.g.
algorithmically) extracting information from signals is to be considered QSO
assistance, whether that extraction is used for alerting an operator to the
existence of a signal or using the information to complete a QSO.

Thus, examples of technologies that constitute QSO assistance (automatically
extracting information from signals) include spotting networks, skimmers,
decoders, and similar information coming from other human beings. This is
why Super Check Partial is not assistance, since it has nothing to do with
the extraction of information from on-air signals during a contest. SCP can
tell you what's in the historical record, but not what's actually happening
now, on the air."

> 
> 
> Recording - I have nothing against recording the contest, just want to be
> sure there is an easy way of doing so and not making the requests after
> the fact.
>
 
ZD> The technology of recording is widely available.  The draft 1 rules were
unclear when someone should have to record their effort. The intent is NOT
to require everyone to record.  At most, it will only be stations that are
specifically requested to do so and notified IN ADVANCE.

> 
> 
> Club scores different from listed score - For some time there has been a
> system in place in CQWW that allows an operator to submit a score for the
> club score that is different than the one submitted for awards purposes.
> For example, I could submit an entry for SO20 for Award purposes but
> submit SOAB for the club score.  The result is obviously to increase the
> club score.  I am not sure how many people are aware of this nor have I
> seen it spelled out anywhere.
> 

ZD> The Club score comes from your official entry.  There are administrative
challenges with trying to use other QSOs for the club score. If we did as
you suggest, we would have to score all of the logs two times.  This is not
something we are prepared to do at this time. 

> 
> 
> Club mileage - I think 250 miles should solve the problem of people not
> being within a circle somewhere.  Now, we can all belong somewhere.  Now,
> how about the ability to submit the same score to clubs in different
> categories?
> 

ZD> The Cabrillo file format and our software is not set up to allow
submission of single op entries to multiple clubs. We do it for multi-ops by
hand and it is a time consuming process. 

> 
> 
> 73,
> 
> Dennis, K2SX
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest