I'm pretty sure I'm qualified to answer the second question... If I understand Ed's proposal correctly (and I may not), the benefit of segregating participants into "Competitive" and "Non-competitive
Interesting question, Bill. In WPX CW last year, the top SO(A)AB HP station would have placed eighth in SOAB HP. The mult total of the Assisted winner was higher than all but one of the Unassisted to
The CAC evaluated adding a 24-hour category to ARRL DX, but rejected the idea. As I recall, the primary worry was that it would encourage people who put in more than 24 hours, but less than 40 hours,
encourage more people to operate even 24 hours. If more people feel they have a shot at winning the 24 hour category or being in the top ten, and they can do so without killing themselves, then perh
I agree -- we have to try it to find out. While I agree that the top guns and big guns will likely win if they enter a 24-hour category, there may well be some very talented operators who will give t
I believe a more accurate term for what Dave opposes is "Any contiguous 24", rather than "best 24 out of 48". The other alternative is "Any 24", which allows the op to choose whichever 24 hours he/sh
Thanks for the rules quotation, Bob. I should point out that ARRL rules regarding remote operating are almost identical to those of CQ WW. The ARRL Contest Advisory Committee took up the question of
first I'm with Stan on this (full text of his post below.) The rules against self-spotting are designed to prevent the more egregious form, which is to spot one's run frequency. The potential impact
Your wish has been granted (sort of). Last year CQ WW added the "Classic" overlay, which restricts the operator to one radio. However, operating time is restricted to 24 hours, non-assisted. 73, Dick
I think the unfortunate custom of sending leading zeros stems from the wording of the rules for CQ WPX: IV. EXCHANGE: RS(T) report plus a progressive contact serial number starting with 001 for the f
Comments on CWWW Rules 2015: VIII. DEFINITION OF TERMS 2. QSO alerting assistance I don't see the necessity of this change. Having just a call sign or just a multiplier doesn't provide enough informa
IMHO, nothing. But was that the intent of the rule change? Are there other forms of "assistance" that prompted the change? And, as someone else pointed out, the rule now prohibits changing the log ba
When I replied to Stan's post below, I forgot to copy the reflector: Before the CAC and CQWWCC came out with rules covering CW Skimmer, the definition of "assistance" was vague and non-specific. But
Here's a continuation of the thread I just posted. My point is that if the committee is concerned about alerts that include call signs and/or mult information (i.e., that certain stations are active
That battle has been fought and settled. While many would agree that using a local CW Skimmer is not really "assistance" in the sense that no other person or remote station is helping you, it provide
Because "other methods" is so broad as to prevent you from looking at a call, realizing you got it wrong (say, based on experience or a list of active calls you saw before the contest) and changing
No, look at the revised draft again. The phrase of confirming QSOs has been stricken in the new version. It now reads just other methods. This wording prevents any editing whatsoever after the QSO ha
The preview of revisions is here: http://cqww.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/cqww_rules_2015_draft1.pdf The rule says no Correction of logged entries. Converting the log to another format isnt t
This is good to know. It wasn't clear from the preview whether single-frequency CW decoders were being targeted. Now we can see that they are, and with good justification. Like you, the ARRL CAC neve
Yes, its silly. And remember Im not advocating for the revised rules. Im just trying to interpret them. I think your note on paper example technically would qualify as an edit because you used it to