[CQ-Contest] So Sunday Sucked?

Wed Nov 8 12:11:45 EST 2017

All the reasons stated by Mike, Richard, etc. seem to support the idea of, essentially restarting the contest after so many hours in. You don’t abandon the democratization of SS, as this won’t mean stations with big low-band antennas can simply keep firing up the rate meter every time they go to new bands, and it makes EVERYBODY fresh meat on Sunday. 

Sunday has always sucked. It’s worse when conditions are poor, but it’s always been an issue such that waiting for Cycle 25 alone isn’t an answer. There’s been hand-wringing over this issue for as long as I can remember. 

73, kelly, ve4xt 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Nov 8, 2017, at 07:37, W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu at w0mu.com> wrote:
> 
> I don't like the solution at all.  You have essentially made it a new contest with the same exchange.
> 
> If two qso's are allowed I would want the 2nd one to be on a different band.
> 
> There are lots of questions that need to be answered first.
> 
> Is participation really down or are people just not operating as long as the population continues to age?
> 
> Where is the participation from?  Has that changed dramatically recently?
> 
> Are the doldrums on specific bands?  Are those that are running on 40 and 80 during the day in the population rich areas also having this issue?
> 
> Does this always get magnified when conditions are not great when we are at or near the bottom of cycles?
> 
> I would lean more to the 2nd radio, 2nd callsign over the 2nd qso but they are essentially the same thing.
> 
> W0MU
> 
> 
>> On 11/7/2017 8:51 AM, Kelly Taylor wrote:
>> I like the idea of two QSOs split by time, as it means stations with the big low-band antennas aren’t necessarily going to run up the rate meter all over again.
>> 
>> If you split it by high-band vs. low-band, you might not actually solve the Sunday doldrums problem, as the big stations might just work through all their second QSOs Saturday night anyway.
>> 
>> As well, making the split high-band vs. low-band will hand the contest to the stations with the big low-band antennas. The way SS works now, big low-band antennas aren’t a huge advantage because they primarily provide access to stations already worked on the high bands. The bigger low-band antennas in some way are a disadvantage, because the one-Q per station rule means they are more often working just the closer stations they couldn’t get on the high bands, just like stations with smaller low-band antennas (low inverted vees, etc.).
>> 
>> A way to solve Sunday doldrums without costing SS its democratization would be perfect.
>> 
>> I think splitting it by time solves the doldrums plus gives equal advantage to small and big stations.
>> 
>> 73, kelly, ve4xt
>>  
>>> On Nov 7, 2017, at 8:41 AM, RT Clay <rt_clay at bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Allowing two qsos seems like the best idea to me so far. If one contact had to be on the high bands (20/15/10) and one on the low bands (40/80/160) it would be a little fairer to different geographic areas and still not require everyone to have a 6-band station to do well. To give incentive for people to operate longer, make each qso 1 point (less than it is now), and an extra 1 bonus point if you get both qsos with a station. Leave multipliers unchanged.
>>> 
>>> I am not sure if time restrictions (first half/second half/etc) are needed, one qso on high versus low bands will usually spread the two contacts out in time anyway due to propagation differences. Specific time restrictions also won't be liked by part-timers who can only operate Saturday or Sunday. If any changes are made to the rules they need to be simple to understand.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Tor
>>> N4OGW
>>> 
>>> --------------------------------------------
>>> On Mon, 11/6/17, Eric Gruff <egruff at cox.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] So Sunday Sucked?
>>> To: cq-contest at contesting.com
>>> Date: Monday, November 6, 2017, 10:13 PM
>>> 
>>> I don't normally get into these rule change
>>> discussions, because there are N
>>> + 10 opinions for every N hams, but it
>>> dawned on me that one or more of the
>>> following are fairly easy to implement,
>>> might stir more activity on Sunday
>>> afternoon/evening, and won't alter the
>>> contest enough to "hurt it" in the
>>> eyes of most purists:
>>> 
>>> 1. Split the time in half (15 + 15
>>> hours, or the first 24 and last 6 hours),
>>> and allow one QSO with each station in
>>> each segment. In other words,
>>> everyone can work each station twice in
>>> the contest, but you have to stick
>>> around to get the 2nd QSO. It might
>>> also help keep some of the rare mults on
>>> the air for long enough that we can all
>>> find them. I suppose we could count
>>> each multiplier once per half, thus
>>> giving folks incentive to try for a
>>> double sweep, but that's probably
>>> overkill. Dupe checking is going to be a
>>> bit more challenging, but pretty much
>>> everyone uses software that should be
>>> able to easily tell us if we can
>>> re-work a station in the 2nd segment.
>>> 
>>> 1a. Corollary to above - only allow the
>>> 2nd contact on a different band than
>>> previously worked. A bit more
>>> challenging, because you can't move someone
>>> after a QSO, but have to wait until the
>>> next segment of the contest to work
>>> them on the 2nd band.
>>> 
>>> 2. Give a QSO multiplier (1.5x ?) for
>>> contacts made in the last six or eight
>>> hours of the contest period.
>>> 
>>> Obviously, high scores will change for
>>> the first two scenarios, but at least
>>> folks will be incentivized to stick
>>> around at the end of the contest. I
>>> don't think either option will stop
>>> folks from participating at the
>>> beginning for a lot of reasons, and
>>> will make the strategy of choosing the
>>> 24 of 30 hours to operate a bit more
>>> challenging. IMO, the last six hours
>>> are one of the few advantages for us
>>> West Coast operators - we don't have to
>>> stay up until 10 PM (or later for folks
>>> in Atlantic Time) on a Sunday night
>>> to finish the contest.
>>> 
>>> NC6K
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>> _______________________________________________
>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> 