I actually think it would do the reverse for competitive operators. By
instituting time limits, I think you will absolutely guarantee "dead" times
in ARRL DX. Similar to WPX, you will have large amounts of dead space from
about 0600 to 1000z - depending on how much off time ARRL is proposing.
You will also be guaranteeing that CQ Magazine's CQWW is the king of all
contests since it will be the only major DX contest that is a 48 hour event
for single operators.
As to participation, ARRL needs to realize that ARRL DX is the world's
largest QSO party. Unless you make it a everyone-works-everyone contest
(and we have plenty of them), there is not an incentive for hams to fly to
5R8, 8Q7, A2 and D4 to operate this contest. The WAE contest is similar in
this fashion - no rare DX activations and the winners (outside of the focus
area) are typically in places that are proximate to EU - ZC4, UP, UA9, CN,
EA9, etc.
73 Rich NN3W
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Chamalian" <w1rm@arrl.net>
To: "'Dick Green WC1M'" <wc1m73@gmail.com>; "'Bud Trench'"
<aa3b.bud@gmail.com>
Cc: <gofrc@yahoogroups.com>; <n2mg@contesting.com>;
<cq-contest@contesting.com>; <KA2ANF@arrl.net>
Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2011 7:20 AM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Comments on Proposed Changes to ARRL DX
> As a long time participant in ARRL DX (and a winner back in 1971) I'd like
> to better understand the reason(s) behind the proposal to have a time
> limit.
>
> I don't believe having such a limit would do anything to increase
> participation on either the W/VE or DX side. What would make the contest
> more interesting/fun is more stations to work. How to achieve that could
> require a fundamental change akin to the elimination of the quota system.
> More multipliers for both W/VE and DX (use grid square rather than state,
> for example). Let DX work DX might get more DX on the air. But, as I
> said,
> these are radical changes that would mean retirement of the current
> scoring
> records, etc., and a fresh start.
>
> It's not the guys who go full bore who make the contest but rather it's
> the
> more casual op who gets on for a few hours who adds to the volume. How do
> we attract them should be an area of focus.
>
> Pete, W1RM
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dick Green WC1M [mailto:wc1m73@gmail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2011 2:11 PM
> To: 'Bud Trench'
> Cc: gofrc@yahoogroups.com; n2mg@contesting.com; cq-contest@contesting.com;
> KA2ANF@arrl.net
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Comments on Proposed Changes to ARRL DX
>
> Hi Bud,
>
> Thanks for the input. It will be considered in the CAC's deliberations.
> All
> 16 CAC Divisional representatives are experienced contesters and most of
> them consult other contesters in and out of their respective Divisions
> before taking a position on the issues we study. Your Division CAC rep is
> N2MG and I see you've copied him. I encourage you to speak with Mike about
> your concerns.
>
> Please be advised that, despite what the article in RadioSport says, the
> CAC
> is still in discussion and study mode on ARRL DX. We've had some
> preliminary
> votes, straw polls if you will, on various issues to get a sense of where
> CAC members stand, but we have not come to any final conclusions and have
> made no recommendations to the ARRL Board committees with authority to
> change rules. It's premature to assume anything else. We're not even
> halfway
> through our list of issues to consider. Some of the issues we have yet to
> study could have an impact on our recommendations about issues we've
> already
> covered (hence the reason we've done straw polls and not final votes.)
> Other
> issues still require detailed analysis of log data from past contests to
> fully understand the ramifications. It may be some time before the CAC
> concludes this project and, as I truthfully said to RadioSport, I would
> not
> hazard a guess as to the final outcome on any particular rule.
>
> And I hope to see you in IARU, too!
>
> 73, Dick WC1M
> NE CAC Rep, Chair
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bud Trench [mailto:aa3b.bud@gmail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2011 1:31 PM
> To: 'Dick Green WC1M'
> Cc: KA2ANF@arrl.net; n2mg@contesting.com; gofrc@yahoogroups.com;
> cq-contest@contesting.com
> Subject: Comments on Proposed Changes to ARRL DX
>
> Dear Dick,
>
> I hope this finds you well. The purpose of this email is to comment on
> proposed changes to the ARRL DX contest. It is my understanding the
> Contest
> Advisory Committee has recommended changes to the scoring algorithm.
>
> I believe these changes are stimulated by a desire to increase
> participation
> in ARRL DX. While more participation is always welcomed, I wonder if
> changing the rules would accomplish this objective. I suspect that the
> perception is that the current rules discourage participation from parts
> of
> the US; however, I have never seen any data that supports this perception.
> I also wonder if a rule change might alienate some of the legacy
> participants? Will there likely be a signficant net gain in
> participation?
>
> I also believe that the ARRL must engage the contest community in this
> process in order to optimize the outcome. There are significant
> stakeholders that have made major investments in time and resources that
> are
> entitled to have a voice in this process. I urge you to reach out to the
> major contest clubs and solicit their inputs before any changes are
> finalized.
>
> Enjoy the summer and hope to see work you in IARU.
>
> 73 Bud AA3B
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|