[UK-CONTEST] RSGB Contest Committee

[Paul O'Kane]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tom Wylie" <tom at gm4fdm.com>


> Yes, I disagree - why do we need to shorten the
> exchange anyway Paul, just so we can make 50 more
> QSOs?????  What really is the point?


There's been numerous comments, since 1993 when the
IOTA contest started, to the effect that the exchange
is too long, but no one has ever said it's too short.
Of course, you could argue that it is just right as
it is, but that's the "do nothing" attitude.  Without
change, opportunities are likely to be missed.

In the 2010 IOTA contest I had 1500 QSOs, and sent
and listened to 59(9) a total of 3000 times.

Why - because it's in the rules, and it's simply
a waste of operating time - about one hour for me
and, in total, another hour for those I worked.

What really is the point?  :-)



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Roger G3SXW" <g3sxw at btinternet.com>

> Paul - you are repeating yourself, old man!

Yes, if that's what it takes to encourage others
to consider and respond to my arguments.

> but this is how it'd look for non-IOTAs:

> Me:    F5AA TEST
> You:   DL1AA
> Me:    DL1AA E  (you log 5)
> You:   A (I log 1)
> Me:    TU F5AA

> Pretty silly!

It's not silly - it's exactly the same when 5NN is
included.  You still log the serial, and nothing
else - your logging software has already pre-filled
599 and taken you directly to the serial field.
There is NO difference in what you log, but you do
save some time.  If you want to discuss cut numbers,
it might be better to start a separate thread.

> At bare minimum there must be ... least two exchange-
> elements:

I've not heard of this as a rule or a principle in
contesting.  Are you making it up?  Exchanges can be
anything the contest organisers specify.  I'd suggest
that, at bare minimum, one exchange element is enough :-)  
Anyone disagree?

> But running three QSOs per minute at 33wpm requires
> skill & accuracy and where the QSO 'shape' is essential.

It's easier for me to do this with a shorter exchange.

> Let's encourage operating-skills, not revert to
> the old days of 'Hello old man, nice signal, 579
> peaking S8'.

To which I say, let's encourage operating skills and
not persist with redundant and meaningless exchange
elements.

> Back to basics: it ain't broke,

Like everything else, it could be better - a shorter
exchange might help.  Let's try it.

> Let's not mess with it for minor gain!

It has little to do with minor gain.   It's what
"makes us look ridiculous to non-contesters and
to many VHF+ contesters".  There, I'm repeating
myself.

73,
Paul EI5DI