and RDXC and EUHFC
As I read these threads about the CQWW rules and how they apply to
Skimmers, SO2R, and remote operating, I have to wonder whether it really
matters what the CQWW rules are. In this day of published logs and UBN
reports, what if the competitors made up their own rules, and like
minded competitors would compete against each other under rules they
decide on prior to the contest.
For the vast majority of the operators who are not actually competing,
or are just trying to best prior year's scores, there would be no
change. However, among the actual competitors for a given category,
there are only a handful of operators that are truly competing for the
top spot. This is true whether it be at a world level, or at a regional
level. They can just agree among themselves what the rules are, whether
to SO2R, skimmer, etc. For example, should the top operators on CQWW CW
in the USA all agree that SO2R was OK but skimmer was bad, they could do
so. Should another op use the skimmer to surpass them, what difference
does it make? The essence of competition is that you are as good as who
you beat. Should somebody use a methodology outside of the accepted
realm, they may get their name in the magazine but, if they have not
beaten the top operators, what have they accomplished?
The skimmer is a simplistic example. You don't like SO2R, create your
own SO1R category. You don't like 48 hour contesting, create your own
24 hour category and decide amongst yourselves about how offtime is
calculated. You don't like the 2 transmitter, M/S rule, create a "2
guys and a radio" category. People can flock to the categories they
like, agree on the rules, and then compete. A separate writeup of these
results can be published on the web by somebody so motivated, using the
output of the CQWW committee log checking. In the long run, categories
will emerge that represent how people will like to compete and operate,
and this dependence on legal parsing of arcane rules will go away, or at
least it will go offline to competitors themselves. The categories that
can't reach consensus will just fade away into their own tired rhetoric.
In the days of the logs and log checking being private, this was not a
practical outcome. However, with the world class log checking of the
CQWW committee (and others), unique categories can be created with
sacrificing the integrity of the results.
In a recent discussion with a contesting luminary we discussed what
would happen if the CQWW scoring rules were different. Similarly, we
get the occasional rant from N6TJ about 3 point vs 2 points for zones 8
and 9. Frequently operating from 8P, this is near to my heart.
However, I must recognize the advantage I have over the 1 point rule for
the EU to EU contacts. What if we had a distance based scoring method?
Perhaps a point for every 1000 miles from your exact location to the
center of the zone of the guy you work. In my discussions with the
contester, he said he could go back an rescore the logs under this
hypothetical scoring method. While that is interesting, you would have
made different operating decisions based on the scoring method. Imagine
if the likely top continental competitors from CT3, CU2, V4, P4, 3V, 5B
and EA8 all agreed beforehand on a set of rules/scoring prior to the
contest designed to heighten the competition. There is no reason that
this could not be done, independent of the CQWW committee. Admittedly,
software would have to support this but it is indeed feasible
My point is not to bash the CQWW committee, just to rethink the
potential they are enabling. We can put enormous pressure on the CQWW
committee to define the rules in perfect legalese, which is impossible.
There is the sacred cow of the prior year records and these guys work
hard enough without having them manage more categories. Admittedly, the
WRTC criteria makes this complicated as well.
What I am suggesting, is that the landmark decision of opening up the
logs changes everything. We are no longer bound by the contest
committee categories. We can make up our own categories and find like
minded contesters to compete with. The sport is not about records and
rules, it is about the competition itself. My experience is that best
competitors will seek to create categories that balance the advantages,
not create unique advantages for themselves. This approach will allow
innovation and experimentation which, in the long run should produce a
more appealing set of categories, make the competition more fair, and
generate a broader set of true competitors, not just passive
participants.
Is CQWW dead? The answer is no. In fact its forward thinking on log
releases, combined with its log checking, can breathe even more life
into contesting, perhaps not as we know it today.
73, Tom W2SC
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|