[OZ-CONTEST] sac regel forslag

Sun, 20 Oct 2002 09:22:28 +0200

SAC Contestregler-1.

Nu håber jeg det virker.Desværre gik noget af overskueligheden tabt ved
denne transaktion med teksten.
Tak for tålmodigheden.
Man lærer noget hver dag.
73 Peter OZ5WQ

Her kommer kopier af den hidtidige korrespondance.
Der er ikke redigeret i teksten, men vedhængende oplysninger om
forsendelsesveje, reklamer o.lign. er fjernet, for at gøre det mere
overskueligt.
Overskriften på de enkelte mails er fremhævet.

Dear Colleagues,

I am Jukka Klemola, OH6LI, SRAL Contest Manager for international
contesting.

In the last NRAU meeting it was agreed once again, that we - Contest
Managers of SRAL, EDR, NRRL and SSA - can change the SAC rules if we can
agree on the changes.
The NRAU meeting also decided on the official wording of the current
SAC rules.
I guess you all have received your version through your NRAU meeting
representative.
I can send you the current rules if you would like to have the dicument.

An change decision means, that we are all in a favour of a particular
change. If anyone of us has a strong opposing opinion, we will not implement
the change in question.

The NRAU meeting set us a timeline of end of this year to be ready with the
changes for the 2003 SAC Contest, which will be hosted by SRAL.
So in practise we have some 10 weeks to discuss the possible changes,
if you agree to discuss this.

Please respond to me that you have read the mail and whether you agree to
discuss the changes or if you would rather leave the things as they are,
no matter what the proposal is.

73,
Jukka

PS.
I enclose here an overview of a schedule proposal I made and a list
of issues we  have on the table now.

SRAL President Jari, OH2BU, was participating the NRAU meeting and
introduced the SRAL part of the meeting for SAC issues. Combining the SAC
CW and SSB portions to a one weekend mixed (CW, SSB, mixed)  SAC Contest
was discussed at NRAU meeting, and I personally was in favour of that.

However, now in a wider internal discussion between SRAL members interested
in HF contesting  the preliminary vote shows a close to 50-50 result on
the subject, so we are not going to propose that change, but we do not
have a strong opinion.
After a brief discussion the understanding became to be that in SAC we would
make less total QSOs if we would heve only one weekend. Less QSOs is less
fun.

But we would like to hear, of course, your opinions on this subject, too.

The question of the weekend issue initiated a number of other proposals
from SRAL members.
Here is the first draft of items for your review & discussion:

1) Scandinavians work each other, one point per QSO
2) Scandinavian countries count as multipliers
3) Faulty QSO, what are the effects, do we introduce loosing the QSO points
or do we go further with 'penalty points' like CQWW
  - this means that we would need to introduce real log checking
      Standpoints vary from loosing points for the receiving station only
      but not multiplier loosing to
      3xQSo point loss plus transmitting station loosing the QSO points,
      including if the QSO was a mult, losing the mult
4) Supporting electronic logs openly
5) Supporting email logs
6) Supporting Cabrillo
   -there is a SW made in Sweden by CER and EZT and we have agreed to get
    details after the SW is seen to be functional
   -updating / using the SW should be discussed between all of us, CER & EZT
    likely are the best people for that
7) Allowing packet/internet multiplier spotting to be used.
         This is probably the trickiest of the proposals
         We seem to have a substantial majority on changing that subject.

Schedule proposal:

Second draft of SRAL proposal will be available by 15th October.
SRAL "nearly final proposal" is available by 31st October.

If the contest group discussions at SRAL annual meeting mid-November
brings any adjustments, I will inform you about them right away.

Hello
The SAC Contest is popular, this can be seen in the comments this year.
Whatever we do we are not going to take over CQWW.

I prefer 1 mode pr. week, and 24 hours pr. periode, just as it is, otherwise
it will get  character as a get-together party.

I propose to cut away M/M class scandinavian, but add singleband categori
for dx, there are quite a few logs there this year, and they are put into
the below 100w category.

Keep SWL, they are few, but their comments are very positive this year, and
they may be licenced some day.

We may consider to add 160m.
I think we shall be satisfied with app. 1000 participians/ year.
My comments to your proposals are made after a (>)in your text.

I think will make a soapbox in the results for 2002.
73 Peter OZ5WQ

OH6LI
Peter,
Great to see a response from you!

Cutting MM was on SRALs list.
I know we did not have anybody in this category,
but still our members are not in favor
for that.
I do not have a strong opinion on the issue.

Single bands for DX.
Thanks for the proposal.

I will add this to the list I send next Monday/Tuesday.

We do not have a proposal to remove SWL.

Adding 160 will be on the proposal list by early next week.
We had that but we did not form a strong opinion in a
direction or another so we can discuss it.

I will go through your comments later.
I will compile all comments and present them to contest
managers when I have emails from all.

73,
Jukka

> Kommentarer fra OZ5WQ.
> Hello
> The SAC Contest is popular, this can be seen in the comments
> this year.
> Whatever we do we are not going to take over CQWW.
>
> I prefer 1 mode pr. week, and 24 hours pr. periode, just as
> it is, otherwise
> it will get  character as a get-together party.
>
> I propose to cut away M/M class scandinavian, but add
> singleband categori
> for dx, there are quite a few logs there this year, and they
> are put into
> the below 100w category.
>
> Keep SWL, they are few, but their comments are very positive
> this year, and
> they may be licenced some day.
>
> We may consider to add 160m.
> I think we shall be satisfied with app. 1000 participians/ year.
> My comments to your proposals are made after a (>)in your text.
>
> I think will make a soapbox in the results for 2002.
> 73 Peter OZ5WQ

Følgende er en opsummering fra OH6LI

I enclose here an overview of a schedule proposal I made and a list
of issues we  have on the table now.

SRAL President Jari, OH2BU, was participating the NRAU meeting and
introduced the SRAL part of the meeting for SAC issues. Combining the SAC
CW and SSB portions to a one weekend mixed (CW, SSB, mixed)  SAC Contest
was discussed at NRAU meeting, and I personally was in favour of that.

However, now in a wider internal discussion between SRAL members interested
in HF contesting  the preliminary vote shows a close to 50-50 result on
the subject, so we are not going to propose that change, but we do not
have a strong opinion.
After a brief discussion the understanding became to be that in SAC we would
make less total QSOs if we would heve only one weekend. Less QSOs is less
fun.

But we would like to hear, of course, your opinions on this subject, too.

The question of the weekend issue initiated a number of other proposals
from SRAL members.
Here is the first draft of items for your review & discussion:

1) Scandinavians work each other, one point per QSO
<No

2) Scandinavian countries count as multipliers
<No

3) Faulty QSO, what are the effects, do we introduce loosing the QSO points
or do we go further with 'penalty points' like CQWW
  - this means that we would need to introduce real log checking
      Standpoints vary from loosing points for the receiving station only
      but not multiplier loosing to
      3xQSo point loss plus transmitting station loosing the QSO points,
      including if the QSO was a mult, losing the mult
<No points, cut away, this will make electronic check easy.

4) Supporting electronic logs openly
<? Do you mean only or?

5) Supporting email logs
<Only attatched logs, but callsign, mode and class would be appreciated in
the subject line, and only that,no creative writing.

6) Supporting Cabrillo
   -there is a SW made in Sweden by CER and EZT and we have agreed to get
    details after the SW is seen to be functional
   -updating / using the SW should be discussed between all of us, CER & EZT
    likely are the best people for that
<A good idea, Cabrilo is obviously going to be the norm in major contests.

7) Allowing packet/internet multiplier spotting to be used.
         This is probably the trickiest of the proposals
         We seem to have a substantial majority on changing that subject.
<Why not, people use it anyway.

Schedule proposal:

Second draft of SRAL proposal will be available by 15th October.
SRAL "nearly final proposal" is available by 31st October.

If the contest group discussions at SRAL annual meeting mid-November
brings any adjustments, I will inform you about them right away.

OH6LI
I forwarded this to CCF reflector asking if anyone opposes.
I believe this is a very good change.
Thanks
73,
Jukka

SM3CER
> > Hej!
> >
> > SAC-enkät i Finland på CCF-reflektorn
> > (CCF = Contest Club Finland)
> >
> > Jag har fått hjälp av Markku, SM3LDP med översättning
> > från finska och följande frågor håller man just nu på
> > att svara på (Jag har försökt "försvenska" frågorna
> > så gott jag kunnat):
> >
> > - - - - - - - - - -
> > 1. Ska 160 m inkluderas?
> >
> > 2. Ska straffpoängen för omärkta dupes tas bort?
> >
> > 3. Ska straffpoäng ges för felaktiga QSO?
> >
> > 4. Ska DX-Cluster få användas även av Single Op.?
> >
> > 5. Ska Cabrillo vara logstandard för SAC?
> >
> > 6. Ska loggarna vara "öppna" för alla att titta på?
> >
> > 7. Skandinaver ska få köra andra skandinaver - mult. enligt DXCC?
> >
> > 8. Om JA enl. punkt 7 ska QSO med eget land ge 0 eller 1 poäng?
> >    (QSO med övriga skandinaviska länder föreslås ge 1 poäng/QSO)
> >
> > 9. Ska det vara tillåtet att ha QSO med stationer som inte
> >    deltar i SAC?
> > - - - - - - - - - -
> >
> > Vi kan väl besvara frågorna även på TOEC-reflektorn, så får
> > dom ett underlag för diskussion i SAC Contest Committee även
> > från SM!?
> >
> > Vi kan väl svara öppet på frågorna!?
> >
> > Sedan såg ni kanske att man på NRAU-mötet på Island i augusti
> > fått ett förslag från SRAL Contest Manager att ha bara en
> > SAC-weekend med en mixed CW/SSB-test. Diskuterades också att
> > flytta SSB-delen till ett annat veckoslut. Detta beroende på
> > att SSB-delen kolliderar med "CQ/RJ World-Wide RTTY DX Contest"
> > som alltid går SISTA helgen i september. SAC:s SSB-del går
> > alltid 4:e helgen i september. Vissa år kan det vara två skilda
> > helger (t ex 2001), men oftast blir det samma helg.
> >
> > Personligen tycker jag ju inte att de två tävlingarna kolliderar.
> > Det är två helt skilda trafiksätt, som inte stör varandra
> > speciellt mycket (undantag 40 m). Vad som egentligen kolliderar
> > är intresset från ett mycket litet antal contesters som inte
> > riktigt vet vilken test dom ska välja att köra just den helgen.
> > Dom kan ju köra båda - SAC är ju bara 24 timmar och CQ/RJ RTTY
> > är 48 timmar, så det finns 24 timmar kvar att köra RTTY på... :-)
> > Skämt åsido - det är synd att behöva bli undanskuffade av en
> > annan tävling som kommit dit långt efter att SAC startade för
> > 44 år sedan.
> >
> > Så vi tar tre frågor till när vi ändå är igång:
> >
> > - - - - - - - - - -
> > 10. Ska SAC gå bara en helg (3:e helgen i september) mixed CW/SSB?
> >
> > 11. Ska SSB-delen i SAC flyttas till en annan helg?
> >
> > 12. Om JA på 11 - har du ett förslag på vilken helg?
> > - - - - - - - - - -
> >
> > Jag kan göra en sammanställning av svaren efter någon vecka.
> > Om någon absolut inte vill ge sina svar offentligt på reflektorn
> > får han/hon gärna skicka ett mail till mig, så kommer även ett
> > sådant svar med i sammanställningen. Jag kommer bara att
> > redovisa antal JA eller NEJ för varje fråga (0 eller 1 på punkt
> > 8 och veckoslut på punkt 12).
> >
> > Jag har några ytterligare kommentarer:
> >
> > Punkt 2 och 5:
> > Om punkt 5 besvaras med JA, så bör också punkt 2 besvaras med JA.
> > Om Cabrillo blir officiell logstandard för SAC, vilket är mycket
> > troligt, så finns ingen anledning kvar att bestraffas för omärkta
> > dupes. Det går nämligen inte att märka ett QSO som dupe i en
> > Cabrillolog. Däremot tar rättningsprogrammet hand om alla dupes
> > och ger dom rätt status.
> >
> > Punkt 3:
> > Vi har inte straffpoäng idag i SAC:s regler för felaktiga QSO,
> > så varför införa det nu? Varför ska man bestraffas för att vara
> > med i SAC? Det är väl straff nog om man kör ett felaktigt QSO
> > att poäng och multiplier tas bort! Nej, man ska väl premieras
> > för att man deltar!!!
> >
> > Punkt 6:
> > Här fick jag en svårtolkad översättning av Markku som löd:
> > "Favorisering av öppen elektronik logg". Jag är inte riktigt
> > säker på att min "försvenskning" är riktig på den här punkten.
> >
> > Punkt 4 och 9:
> > Dom här frågorna dras alltid upp av finnarna, så fort man ska
> > diskutera regeländringar. Två helt befängda frågor enligt min
> > uppfattning! Endera är man Single Operator eller också inte!
> > Om man använder DX-Cluster är man definitivt inte "Single".
> >
> > Samma sak med att köra en station som inte deltar i testen.
> > Varför det? Han är ju inte med i testen! Om man då kör t ex
> > en DXpedition och får sina 59 eller 599 men inte ett serienr
> > och själv lägger dit 001, då har man ju fuskat. Man har ju
> > inte tagit emot ett testmeddelande som i SAC består av RS/RST
> > plus ett serienummer som STARTAR på 001. Reglerna säger just
> > nu: "The minimum content of a valid contest QSO is correct
> > callsign and correct contest exchanges". Man motsäger sig
> > själv om man då ska tillåta QSO:n från sådana som inte deltar
> > i testen.
> >
> > 73 de Janne

Kommentarer fra LA8HW.

At 23:32 09.10.02 +0300, you wrote:
>Please respond to me that you have read the mail and whether you agree to
>discuss the changes or if you would rather leave the things as they are,
>no matter what the proposal is.

Here are some immediate comments.

>SRAL President Jari, OH2BU, was participating the NRAU meeting and
>introduced the SRAL part of the meeting for SAC issues. Combining the SAC
>CW and SSB portions to a one weekend mixed (CW, SSB, mixed)  SAC Contest
>was discussed at NRAU meeting, and I personally was in favour of that.

Basically we want to keep it as two separate contests. But, in the last
years we have seen an increasing competition from CQ WW RTTY in the SSB
weekend. This is a battle we probably will loose, and in this aspect we
could discuss the possibilities. Moving the SSB part is one possible
solution, merging the two part is another. I am open for a disussion!

>1) Scandinavians work each other, one point per QSO

No. It is the non-scandinavians that complain of low activity. We have
enough to work!

>2) Scandinavian countries count as multipliers

No.

>3) Faulty QSO, what are the effects, do we introduce loosing the QSO points
>or do we go further with 'penalty points' like CQWW
>  - this means that we would need to introduce real log checking
>      Standpoints vary from loosing points for the receiving station only
>      but not multiplier loosing to
>      3xQSo point loss plus transmitting station loosing the QSO points,
>      including if the QSO was a mult, losing the mult

I am open for a discussion. However, I am afraid we receive too few foreign
logs to be able to do a fair check, but foresees a comment from the Swedes
who have tried electronic log checking.

>4) Supporting electronic logs openly

?

>5) Supporting email logs

?

>6) Supporting Cabrillo
>   -there is a SW made in Sweden by CER and EZT and we have agreed to get
>    details after the SW is seen to be functional
>   -updating / using the SW should be discussed between all of us, CER &
EZT
>    likely are the best people for that

I received a copy of the SW after SAC 2001 was finished manually, so I
haven't tested it yet. Anyway, I am sure this is the way to go!

>7) Allowing packet/internet multiplier spotting to be used.
>         This is probably the trickiest of the proposals
>         We seem to have a substantial majority on changing that subject.

Yes, tricky!

Allowing packet will mean a devastating disadvantage for those not having
access.

On the other hand, it's easy to cheat!

73 de
Jan / LA9HW

> Dear Colleagues,
>
> I am Jukka Klemola, OH6LI, SRAL Contest Manager for international
> contesting.

> I enclose here an overview of a schedule proposal I made and a list
> of issues we  have on the table now.
>
> SRAL President Jari, OH2BU, was participating the NRAU meeting and
> introduced the SRAL part of the meeting for SAC issues.
> Combining the SAC
> CW and SSB portions to a one weekend mixed (CW, SSB, mixed)
> SAC Contest
> was discussed at NRAU meeting, and I personally was in favour of that.
>
> However, now in a wider internal discussion between SRAL
> members interested
> in HF contesting  the preliminary vote shows a close to 50-50
> result on
> the subject, so we are not going to propose that change, but we do not
> have a strong opinion.
> After a brief discussion the understanding became to be that
> in SAC we would
> make less total QSOs if we would heve only one weekend. Less
> QSOs is less
> fun.
>
> But we would like to hear, of course, your opinions on this
> subject, too.
>
>
> The question of the weekend issue initiated a number of other
> proposals
> from SRAL members.
> Here is the first draft of items for your review & discussion:
>
> 1) Scandinavians work each other, one point per QSO
> <No
>
> 2) Scandinavian countries count as multipliers
> <No
>
> 3) Faulty QSO, what are the effects, do we introduce loosing
> the QSO points
> or do we go further with 'penalty points' like CQWW
>   - this means that we would need to introduce real log checking
>       Standpoints vary from loosing points for the receiving
> station only
>       but not multiplier loosing to
>       3xQSo point loss plus transmitting station loosing the
> QSO points,
>       including if the QSO was a mult, losing the mult
> <No points, cut away, this will make electronic check easy.
>
> 4) Supporting electronic logs openly
> <? Do you mean only or?
>
> 5) Supporting email logs
> <Only attatched logs, but callsign, mode and class would be
> appreciated in
> the subject line, and only that,no creative writing.
>
> 6) Supporting Cabrillo
>    -there is a SW made in Sweden by CER and EZT and we have
> agreed to get
>     details after the SW is seen to be functional
>    -updating / using the SW should be discussed between all
> of us, CER & EZT
>     likely are the best people for that
> <A good idea, Cabrilo is obviously going to be the norm in
> major contests.
>
> 7) Allowing packet/internet multiplier spotting to be used.
>          This is probably the trickiest of the proposals
>          We seem to have a substantial majority on changing
> that subject.
> <Why not, people use it anyway.
>
>
> Schedule proposal:
>
> Second draft of SRAL proposal will be available by 15th October.
> SRAL "nearly final proposal" is available by 31st October.

> If the contest group discussions at SRAL annual meeting mid-November
> brings any adjustments, I will inform you about them right away.

Hello SAC Mgr’s

Subject: All logs received via e-mail will be confirmed via e-mail.

That is what our rules says about confirming received logs.
As you may know, this has not been the case in this contest.

By experience I therefore propose following procedure:
Use a wellknown webpage to announce a daily list of calls from incomming
logs, and later on the results and statistics.

The motivation for the proposal is following:

Some ask by returnmail for a confirmation, others just ask, which meens that
I must take action.
Luckily the most do not care, as with paperlogs, where only two, till now,
has been send to me by recommandation.

I tried, before the contest to arrange a robot answer for all incomming
e-mails, with my servercompagny TDC in Denmark, but without luck. They told
me to do it myself, very easy they said, could be done by their webpage.
It never happens me to find the possibilities.
A robot will also answer all incomming mails, where app. 40%  is
 “Sperm-mail”. This will undoubtly coarse more mail of that type.

Some people send their log 2- 3 times within 5 minutes, in desperation of
not having a answer.
You will have to check all their e-mails, to be shure the logs are equal, or
pick up the latest one for the competition.
Very timeconsuming, because we are talking about opening and inspecting all
attatched files.

In order to help participians I asked SM3CER, who has one of the most known
webpages, to bring a list of callsign from incomming logs.
With a daily updating it seems to work very well.

I think the proposal is easy to etablish and will raise the interest for the
SAC Contest internationally, and
hopefully the final results will show up faster this way, and we share a lot
of paperwork.

73 Peter, OZ5WQ
EDR Contest manager

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