---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Tom Haavisto <kamham69@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, May 23, 2013 at 9:37 PM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQ WW Rules Changes
To: Bill Tippett <btippett@alum.mit.edu>
I was at the presentation, and the thinking was that the top operators
try very hard to get everything right. One busted QSO can (and has)
made the difference between first/second place, so accuracy counts.
To a large extent, folks at this level will be unaffected by reducing
the penalty from 3 to 2. However, folks "in the middle and lower"
tend to be less careful, and they get whacked pretty hard. Randy made
an example of one person making 30 QSOs, messing up a dozen and ending
up with a negative score. Clearly, this was not a serious entry, but
I am sure they were shocked to end up with a negative score! Randy
did some checking, and the change will not make a big change to the
top scores, so it seemed like a reasonable change.
As for the dirty signals, this rated pretty high in the survey
results. The thinking is - the person with the dirty signal is
actually better off, as folks will tend to move a bit further away in
order to escape the dirty signal, leaving him with less QRM/better
off. The open question being - how is this going to be determined?
They have SDR recordings for the entire contest, so "after the fact"
analysis is certainly possible. For now, good idea, have data - just
need a way to figure out who the offenders are. If anyone has a way
to objectively determine a good/bad signal, please let Randy know.
Tom - VE3CX
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Bill Tippett <btippett@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> I noticed this from today' s The Daily DX:
>
>>During the Contest forum at Dayton last weekend CQ WW DX Contest
> Director K5ZD, Randy Thompson, did an interesting presentation on the
> best contest in the world, the CQ World Wide. He mentioned several
> changes that will take place starting this year. The busted QSO
> penalty will change from the removal of three QSOs to the removal one
> (sic...
> probably meant to be "of") two. In addition the CQ WW Contest is working
> on new DQ criteria for dirty signals (i.e. wide signals, etc.). Full
> details are
> expected to be announced well before the contests.
>
> I'm surprised there's been no discussion of the busted QSO penalty change.
> Was
> this the decision endorsed by the full committee? IMHO this is one of the
> unique features of the CQ WW that encourages logging accuracy. Changing
> the penalty from 3 QSOs to 2 may seem insignificant but it potentially
> violates the integrity and consistency of past records, which I feel should
> not be done without careful consideration and discussion.
>
> I applaud the move to DQ based on dirty signals. With the advent of SDR
> spectrum recordings, I hope this can be enforced.
>
> 73, Bill W4ZV
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|