[OZ-CONTEST] sac log nok engang

[Peter Vestergaard]

Hej
Det er rart med nogen der kan sige det som det er.
Erfaringen gjorde jeg jo så for nogen tid side, for første gang.
Nu tror jeg jeg har fanget den, Jørgen. tak skal du have.

Hej
Her er SRAL’s forslag til ændring af SAC Contest reglerne.

 Subject:	SAC rules suggestion from SRAL with explanations
> > Hello,
> > SRAL had a discussion on CCF reflector after a pre-vote on
> several subjects.
> The items listed here have been discussed on the open forum
> in Finnish.
> >
> SRAL suggests next renewals into rules, exact working to be
> discussed if we have agreement:
>
> 160m into SAC: no
>  -this is seen to be pushing the smaller signals even more
> far away from big signals
>
> Remove issue declaring penalty points for unmarked dupes: no
> clear standpoint
>  -to be noted this does not apply for cabrillo logs
>  -SRAL vote was close to 50-50 on this one
>
> Penalty points in CQWW model for wrong calls or exchange: yes
>  -almost unanimous yes
>
> Allowing the use of internet or packet spotting: yes
>  -almost unanimous yes
>  -this allowes us to think for other uses for internet, too;
> SAC2003 pages have
>   been agreed to be constructed under SM3CER.. maybe we could
> think about
>   real-time scoring implementation for SAC2003 !
>   And special SAC spotting availability, too.
>  -self spotting to be denied clearly
>
> Favouring Cabrillo format log: yes
>  -in fact this is already in the rules but was not in the
> Finnish version we had here
>
> Open favouring of electronic logs: yes
>  -allowing the spotting opens a door for early bird logs,
> maybe somethiong to be in a
>   lottery for logs received in the first 30 minutes after contests?
>  -adding a note that all electronic logs will be answered by
> a robot would be nice if we can
>   build that service for entrants
>
> Scandinavian multipliers per DXCC list: yes
>  -vote was 5-22, a quite clear yes
>  -this does not create changes in contest SW
>
> Scandinavians count 1 p/QSO
>  -Vote was 3-24, near unanimous
>  -Creates a change need in contest SW
>
> Allowing to work stations not participating the contest
>  -reduces 'please 001' type begging from multipliers and so
> is good and respect for 'normal' hams
>  -to be marked other tha 001 into log; 999 is an alternative
>  -suggestion is to give QSOpoints plus multiplier for these QSOs
>  -is worth doing in practice only for myultipliers
>  -in some occasions helps with pileup when there is an odd
> station calling in does not understand
>   what a contest is
>>
> I hope we can discuss these issues openly between us, the
> contest managers.
> I carboncopied the mail to league chairmen, too, to keep the
> information flow as
> short and efficient as possible.
>
> Regarding the contest timing, SRAL vote was nearly unanimous
> we should keep the
> CW and SSB separate. RTTY is SARTG contest.
> Regarding SSB weekend, SAC receives over 400 logs and RTTY
> contest for the same
> weekend receives just 100 logs more.
> And a small minority of those logs are from Scandinavian countries.
> So, in practise we see no real confrontation of interests
> between these two
> simultabeous events.
> Other weekends have been investigated for SSB, but there is no contest
> free weekend and suggestion is to keep the contest timing as it is.
> >
> 73,
> Jukka

Nå hva si'r I så?
73 Peter OZ5WQ

Keep an eye on SM3CER's Webpage for SAC Contest 2002 Results.
<http://www.sk3bg.se/contest/>