[CQ-Contest] CQWW Committee Restructured

Thu Jul 21 17:04:37 EDT 2016

We like the rules of the CQWW down under - We have a snow flakes chance in hell of winning but often grab single band slices - 
We contest against our own best score or the best score in our region. 
How far away is our closest population centres of DX ? 11,558 km Los Angeles15,239 km Washington DC7,156 Km Tokyo15,670 km BerlinThey are the distance we compete with - and we have fun - If they allowed intra-USA QSOs it would change that character immensely,  station builders would make antennae that did not hear DX and hear the guys 250km away and if they were 1 point per QSO that makes big differences to us specially on the low bands where we struggle to get into the USA. What could be sensible is same country different zone = 1 point....
Good luck with the rule changes - you are making suggestions to change what is the most successful of all contests. Whether you want to look at that in that context perhaps you need to ask; Why am I suggesting taking rules from an unsuccessful contest and placing it in the best of the best ? 

TrentVK4TS PO Box 275 Mooloolaba 4557 0408497550

> From: dave at pkministrywebs.com
> Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 16:37:55 -0400
> To: ku8e at bellsouth.net
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW Committee Restructured
> CC: cq-contest at contesting.com
> 
> 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"
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest