[UK-CONTEST] RSGB Contest Committee

[Tom Wylie]

why do we need to do ANYTHING?    What opportunities are being missed?
So you send 599  3,000  times?    How many times did you send you 
callsign?    Isn't the exchange of data the basis of the competition?

The competition aint broke as witnessed by the increase in numbers 
taking part each year.....  why are you in such a hurry to "fix" it?


Tom
GM4FDM

On 08/08/2010 16:24, Paul O'Kane wrote:
> ----- 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
> _______________________________________________
> UK-Contest mailing list
> UK-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest
>