[UK-CONTEST] RSGB Contest Committee

[cris at gm4fam.plus.com]

Roger SXW is 100% right.

Can someone please explain to this simple soul why changing anything to
affect an ever increasingly well supported event will make it more popular
than it is already ?  Just what is wrong with IOTA's steady growth?  Has
any opinion been sought from non-Island operators?

Sounds like we are on the verge of a modern-age British phenomenon ie
"steady chaps, this is all going too well - how can we screw it up a bit"?

Or even the Japanese golf experience - they just loved the concept of
hitting a little white ball until it went into a wee hole in the grass,
and were getting very good at it; then some bright spark called in a
sports psychologist a few 1000 miles west of here to tell them what a
complicated game it really is, with the only predictable result.

73 Cris
GM4FAM

> Paul - you are repeating yourself, old man! Your case for IOTA stations
> may
> have some logic, 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!  At bare minimum there must be (now it's me repeating) at
> least two exchange-elements: signal report, serial number or IOTA
> reference.
> Or force call-sign exchange at every transmission - no thanks! Or IOTA
> stations drop RST but non-IOTA still send it. Also pretty daft! There has
> never been a contest with only ONE exchange-element - for good reason!
> It's
> too late to exclude non-IOTA/non-IOTA contacts from the contest.
>
> The broader issue here is QSO rate. If we CQ with replies every five
> minutes
> then this discussion is irrelevant. But running three QSOs per minute at
> 33wpm requires skill & accuracy and where the QSO 'shape' is essential.
> Let's encourage operating-skills, not revert to the old days of 'Hello old
> man, nice signal, 579 peaking S8'.
>
> Back to basics: it ain't broke, it's hugely popular, growing like
> wild-fire,
> could become the biggest contest in the world after CQWW. Let's not mess
> with it for minor gain! Drop it, mate!
> 73 de Roger/G3SXW.
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Paul O'Kane" <pokane at ei5di.com>
> To: <uk-contest at contesting.com>
> Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2010 1:46 PM
> Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] RSGB Contest Committee
>
>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Andy Cook G4PIQ" <g4piq at btinternet.com>
>>
>>> RST adds structure and makes us look a little less
>>> ridiculous to non-contesters.
>>
>>
>> I'd suggest that it's precisely the meaningless
>> exchange of 59(9) in IOTA and other major HF
>> contests that makes us look ridiculous to non-
>> contesters and to many VHF+ contesters?
>>
>> Does anyone disagree?
>>
>> As for structure, we all know that when we call
>> another station and hear our callsign, we expect
>> to have to log whatever comes after the callsign.
>> None of us needs extra time to get ready - we are
>> contesters, and the Sprints have already shown
>> that "what you don't expect, you don't miss".
>>
>> At the risk of stating the obvious, the only way
>> to shorten the IOTA exchange is to remove one or
>> more of the exchange elements.
>>
>> The IOTA Reference has to stay because it affects
>> points and multipliers.  The leaves 5NN or Serial
>> to be dropped - and why drop an element that has
>> to be copied on-air, and can't be pre-filled by
>> logging software?
>>
>> Here's what the structure of an IOTA QSO would
>> look like.
>>
>> Me:    EI5DI TEST
>> You:   G2XYZ
>> Me:    G2XYZ 091 EU115  (you log 091 EU115)
>> You:   026 EU5          (I log 026 EU5)
>> Me:    TU EI5DI
>>
>> A change too far?  Hardly!
>>
>> 73,
>> Paul EI5DI
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>