KL7RA:
> My opinion is a rule change should be for the good of everyone. A
> rule change that benefits "most" is probably okay but a rule change
> that allows a bigger advantage for some while forcing a bigger
> disadvantage on others is not a good rule change.
N5IA:
>I finally have to toss in mis dos centavos and express my opinion regarding
one series of contests; the CQ 160's.
>The rule change 4-5 years ago to move the starting time to 0000 Z was for
the benefit of only ONE GROUP (AREA); the already advantaged North American
eastern time zones. That area now has a 3rd shot at EU whereas the western
2/3rds of the continent still only have the two nights. EXTREMELY SLANTED
CHANGE!!!!!!! There was NO OTHER REASON to make the change and there was no
other areas affected positively or adversely.
How can changing a contest to allow EVERYONE, no
matter what their location and relative darkness benefit
one region in particular? The former CQ 160 ran 42 hours
from 22-16z. This favored regions where daylight would fall
between 16-22z, or primarily NA/SA. What about the EU/JA
opening? EU sunset is ~17z and JA sunrise is ~22z, so EU/JA
shared only **one opening** under the former rules.
Under the new rules EU/JA has not one but **two full
openings**. Does that sound like "no other areas affected
positively or adversely"? Under the new rules everyone has an even
shot at ~30 hours of darkness operating time, regardless of where
they live on the planet. I don't feel sorry for the West Coast but
I do for the Southern Hemisphere which must do the CQ 160 during
their summer with less darkness and more QRN than those of us
living in the Northern Hemisphere.
73, Bill W4ZV
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|