[UK-CONTEST] IOTA -" nul points" for Fixed-to-Fixed, pse!

[Rob Harrison]

Hi,

As an onlooker, not having participated in IOTA,or operated HF, this thread 
has been interesting to follow.

The raison d'etre is in the title, Islands on the Air. So at least one end 
of the QSO should be an island.

It seems strange that fixed stations would want to work other fixed 
stations, when there were big incentives not to, can someone explain that? 
Why not just do an ordinary contest.

Decimating activity from non-island stations, if that were the case, is a 
price to pay for getting the contest back to it's roots. Otherwise the 
flagship is sailing under false colours.

Tin hat on, 73,

Bob G8HGN


----- Original Message ----- 
From: <cris at gm4fam.plus.com>
To: <uk-contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2010 10:17 AM
Subject: [UK-CONTEST] IOTA -" nul points" for Fixed-to-Fixed, pse!


>
>
> Dennis F5VHY offers some excellent points from a non-IOTA viewpoint.
>
> What we have to ask ourselves is what sort of contest do we want in 2011
> and beyond?
>
> Chris SJJ's facts on the 10 fold increase in participation indicate to me
> that generally island and non-island entrants are happy as things stand,
> and that the Contest is in a pretty healthy state.
>
> If we have 0 points for n-i to n-i then this will decimate activity from
> non-island competitors - is that really desirable for a flagship RSGB
> event?
>
>>From a scoring point of view what makes the event so challenging and
> enjoyable is getting that balance right between working island multipliers
> (at a generally MUCH slower QSO rate) versus working high rate 3 pointers;
> why deny the non-IOTA stations that same opportunity?
>
> I may be wrong but I thought that participation from the USA was better
> this year - will those on the US mainland bother further after working a 
> few
> American IOTAs?
>
> It would be interesting to have some input from members of groups
> regularly operating from IOTAs such as Gj6YB, GM7V, M8C, DL1KZA, 9A/OM8A,
> N1LI, etc, etc.
>
> I am also against the 160m contest rule change, but feel that is an
> entirely different contest compared to IOTA.
>
> 73 Cris
> GM4FAM
>
>
>
>> Well - I can see the strength of the issue from Nigel's point of view and
>> in relation to the original expressed idea of the contest.
>>
>> But if non-IOTA to non-IOTA QSOs were to be zero points, I can't really
>> see how entering the contest would be a practical proposition for a
>> non-IOTA station - like me!
>>
>> If I were to call CQ - how do I know that a reply is from an IOTA 
>> station?
>> Easy enough if it's a G prefix (or VK!) but what about DL, SM, OH. OZ etc
>> etc etc. He might or might not be an IOTA. He could be calling me on the
>> basis that I might be IOTA. All very confusing!
>>
>> It sounds as if the only practical method for a non-IOTA entrant would be
>> 100% S&P and restricting calls to prefixes that are 100% IOTA or by
>> chasing packet spots that indicate IOTA.
>>
>> I'm not sure that such a setup would attract many non-IOTA entrants.
>>
>> 73 de Dennis - F5VHY.
>> _______________________________________________
>> UK-Contest mailing list
>> UK-Contest at contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> UK-Contest mailing list
> UK-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest
>