[UK-CONTEST] Sprints (and 80mCC)

[Lee Volante]

Agreed. With mixed mode, the possibility to make more QSOs in a single event 
would be increased, but the spread of contesters calling / searching on the 
particular mode that you are on yourself would be reduced.  When calling CQ, 
perhaps two thirds of your audience would be listening on a different mode 
compared with the present rules. I think this would flatten the QSO rate 
over the whole of the event, rather than having a sprint trickling down to a 
stroll. The final QSO tally could be higher, but certainly not double or 
triple, as 2x or 3x mixed mode operating is not preferred for many people 
(considering results from RSGB and other international events.)   Some 
people don't like the sprints because they see them as being too complex 
already - so many of the changes suggested wouldn't help.  Computer logging 
also becomes too complex for some people when 2 (or especially 3) modes are 
run concurrently.  These ideas have the potential to give experienced mixed 
mode entrants an extra buzz and some more QSOs, but adds the risk of putting 
even more people off.

But the bigger question is about communication.  Ian mentions below about 
his "vote."  Changes to the CC and Sprint have been published on the RSGBCC 
website, and then a discussion here follows *afterwards*.  This seems to 
happen every year. The rule or calendar changes are offered without 
explanation (so far), which gives rise to a number of opposing viewpoints 
and potential explanations being given. We presume that the appropriate care 
and consideration of entrants of all different types across the UK has been 
given. Some notes to accompany the changes explaining the changes, 
preferably with some data to back it up rather than relying on general 
impressions would help.  Or if these notes are forthcoming, their timing 
could be much better!  There are examples where despite committee 
deliberation, public comment has caused amended rules to be changed again - 
so perhaps more consultation or publication of a draft programme would be 
worthwhile in future?

I would guess that:

1) The increase in 80mCC support from GM from the re-instatement of the 
January sessions (intended to flatten the playing field to make up for the 
mid-summer propagation which doesn't favour GM) was not large. As there had 
been a number of complaints about the volume of RSGB events in January, on 
balance it was decided to withdraw the January sessions again.

2) The Sprint series has not been such a success compared with the 80mCC. It 
was decided to reduce the number of sessions to maintain a better balance in 
the overall calendar, i.e. not have so many events that are not overly 
popular, and potentially to focus more activity on the fewer remaining 
sessions.

But who knows exactly how many entrants would prefer a January 80mCC or not. 
I don't think anyone truly knows.  Have the expected changes to January 
propagation as mentioned here have been considered? And as for the Sprints, 
I'm literally just guessing.  How did we manage to change the flawed revised 
160m rules, but as yet not the Sprint format, or find a better way to 
include PSK in the 80mCCs?  There have surely been enough comments. Was a 
critical mass of common sense not reached?

Whilst the RSGB itself is it pains to improve communication, and use all 
manner of existing and emerging web technologies to facilitate this and 
better understand and give service to their customer, I have yet to see the 
same intent emerge from the contest committee.  Whilst emails to the 
committee can be sent at any time, it's rare that any feedback is seen to 
have made a difference. More contest sponsors now run periodic online 
surveys so that they *know* what a *substantial* proportion of their 
entrants want or enjoy, and are in a better position to make changes.  From 
what I see the committee's changes are based on limited data - but it 
doesn't have to be this way.  The contest forum at the RSGB Convention is 
usually a very busy affair - but from the entrants perspective the whole 
year shouldn't revolve around just 30 minutes or so of face to face debate 
with a minority of entrants. The interest in the forum shows how the other 
communication methods just don't seem to work. Maybe the calendar changes 
were explained away at the contest forum - I was presenting elsewhere so I 
missed it.  So a summary of what went on for the general public would be 
useful.

Entrants need to feel that they're listened to, that their "vote" has 
counted, and feel that they understand why changes were made. Even if some 
changes may not personally be to their liking, if they've been given the 
facts and the knowledge that their viewpoint has been listened to (or was 
even asked for), more (but not all) may then agree with it.

73,

Lee G0MTN (now back to house painting)

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ian Pritchard" <g3wvg at btinternet.com>
To: <uk-contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2011 3:25 PM
Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] Sprints


> I dont think that making the event more "complex" will acheive greater 
> paticipation. For some reason some folk find the Sprint format not to 
> their taste, even so
> from the last couple of contests, I get the impression that support is
> gradually increasing. If the aim is to make the event more of a "sprint" 
> rather than a qso party we either need more stations or a shorter contest.
> I think I've banged on about this in every "soapbox" but my vote (...if 
> there was one!) would be for staying with the same format but shortening 
> the contest to 60minutes.
>
> 73 Ian G3WVG (or G0AAA in SSB)
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> UK-Contest mailing list
> UK-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest