I enjoy the Stew Perry in part because of the grid square exchange. I like
to dream that I am working all those cool grids on six meters, even though
it's really on 160.
Tod is onto a good idea of a default "I don't know my grid" entry, but I
think it should be put in the log by the serious guy. If a little guy knows
from the rules to send "AA11", he very likely to know, or to learn, what his
grid square is.
Especially on SSB, there would be a lot of "what's your QTH?" probing to get
a proper grid square from an unknowing person. (After all, he could be a new
mult.) If all failed, then "AA11" could be entered as an "I worked this
guy, but he was clueless" entry. If a lazy big gun logged a weak guy as
"AA11"
and the guy sent in a log showing otherwise, then the big gun would lose the
qso, maybe with a modest penalty.
The meaningless RST could be dropped to keep the exchange to two items - the
Grid Square and S/P/or CQ Zone. K8MR sends EN91 OH; PJ2T sends FK62 09.
It would be further cool to have the CQ computers score the contest in
several ways. The traditional way; a Stew Perry pure distance way; a
combination
of the two, with multipliers (whatever they might be) and qso points
determined by distance. So there might be several winners, or maybe even the
same guy
winning under all scoring systems.
Lots of interesting ways to do this, if the Not Invented Here syndrome of
other CQ contests can be avoided.
73 - Jim K8MR
In a message dated 1/7/2009 4:32:24 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, tod@k0to.us
writes:
It has been said that "plagiarism is the sincerest form of flattery".
I am in agreement with the thought that it would not be appropriate to
"imitate" the Stew Perry Contest. However, it might be appropriate to
incorporate a key feature of that contest -- the grid square as a part of
the exchange -- in a revised CQ 160 Contest.
Tom's ,VE3CX, comments about considering the effect/challenge for casual
operators who participate in the CQ 160 certainly deserves consideration. I
can imagine that the revised exchange would become "59(9), Section {or DX
entity) and Grid-Square. If one did not know their grid square they could
send AA11 as the grid square and the scoring could simply allocate the
minimum amount of points to that particular QSO. [Section/DX Multipliers
would be multiplied times the QSO point total]
The interesting thing with including both the Section and the Grid-Square is
that there will continue to be motivation to make a "sweep" as well as
motivation to work hard to get the distant Grid-Squares for QSO point
increases.
Since there is no multiplier for QRP/Low Power and there would be a
multiplier for number of Sections/DX worked, the proposed "NEW CQ 160 would
hardly be considered to be 'cheapening' the Stew Perry. At the same time,
persons participating in order to achieve WAS or capture DX entities would
have that information from the exchange as opposed to a somewhat arcane grid
location.
**************New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making
headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026)
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|