[CQ-Contest] CQWW Committee Restructured

[Dave Edmonds]

I'm enjoying this topic.... Here's my personal experience relating to
contest management.... hang in there with me...

I believe that one of the primary reasons for making a contest rule change
is to increase  activity which will result in more log submissions.

I was involved with the recent overhaul of the South Carolina QSO Party.
Our primary purpose was to increase on-air activity, which will also
increase log submissions. We wanted to give the competitive ops something
to shoot for as well as be inviting for the casual ops. Our team created a
"new" SCQP. Activity has increased by 160% during the last two contests.

Here a few of the "out of the box" changes that we made:

1. Offered double QSO points to SC stations for all out-of-state contacts.
*2. Offered SC stations the opportunity to work other SC stations for
county multipliers. Increased multipliers by 46 per mode.*
3. Added eight Bonus Stations in multiple locations.
4. Created a "balanced" awards program - same number of awards for in-state
and out-of-state stations.
5. Changed the date of the contest! (a radical change).

Prior to 2015, SC stations were only worth QSO points and no county
multiplier. During the 2014 event, I remember observing 8-10 SC stations
"running" within 25 kcs on of each other because there was no multiplier
incentive. The only contest mode for SC stations was to "run, run, run".
Our new county multiplier rule created the necessity for all competitive
stations to "Run" as well as "S&P". This change also was inviting to the
casual operators. In my opinion, this rule change was the 'tipping point'
which helped us achieve a166% increase in log submissions during our last
two contests.

How does this relate to the current discussion...?

The idea of making US states and VE provs multipliers as well as increasing
the same country QSO point value from 0 to  point in the CQWW is similar to
our rule changes, but on a much, much larger scale. If these two ideas were
implemented, there should be much more activity on the less active bands at
off-peak times, while given us an incentive to stay involved with the
contest. I typically operate single band, so this would be a very positive
change. These changes would also give the casual operators and 'rookies'
the opportunity to become more involved with contesting.

Looking forward to the next CQWW and the next SCQP!

73s Dave WN4AFP
SCQP Team Leader
www.scqso.com

On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 10:17 AM, Jeff Clarke <ku8e at bellsouth.net> wrote:

> I don't believe that CQWW has ever been a contest that truly has had a
> level playing field. Those stations on the continental boundaries have
> always had a big advantage. Not that they really need that scoring
> advantage because in many cases they already enjoy a propagation advantage
> as well. Plus the US east coast has always enjoyed a big advantage because
> of its proximity to Europe.
>
> I would like to propose the following:
>
> 1. Get rid of the tiered points system. Same number of points for each QSO
> , except for maybe the following - 1 point for EU--EU QSO's and 1 point for
> USA/VE to US/VE QSO's.
>
> 2. Allow USA to USA QSO'S. This will level the playing field vs EU. If you
> don't like that then only allow QSO's between EU countries for multiplier
> credit only.
>
> 3. Make each US state a multiplier. This contest is run by a US
> organization so there should be an incentive added for those outside the US
> to work us.
>
> Jeff
>
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE Droid
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>



-- 
Dave Edmonds
PK Ministry Webs
864.288.6678
dave at pkministrywebs.com
www.pkministrywebs.com
"Webs from the Heart"