I was there. Randy said a number of guys were winding up with negative
scores. That certainly doesn't encourage long term participation by
newbies.
Barry W2UP
On 5/23/2013 19:12, Richard F DiDonna NN3W wrote:
Bill, I wasn't at Dayton so I didn't get the chance to talk to anyone
about the changes (you often get some pretty good insight after about
10:00 pm on Friday or Saturday night).
While I agree that the leniency on busted calls -might- cause one to
throw a bit more caution to the wind, I don't think there is concern
about integrity of records. The CQWW scoring is an ever-floating
system - owing to the ever changing nature of multiplies. When I
first started contesting in the late 1980s, there were 321 entities on
the DXCC list. There are now 340 - with many of those 19 new entities
being ones that MOST stations can work on at least one band (the PJs,
E7, OM, 9A, S5, and FJ). In the 2011 CQWW SSB test, those entities
constituted probably 30 entity mults that would not have been
available to me in 1989. That represents close to half a million
points in additional score.
I think the effect of new mults has a more pronounced effect on
records than changing the penalty on busted QSOs - which for a good op
is probably no more than 2% of one's score.
73 Rich NN3W
On 5/23/2013 3:54 PM, Bill Tippett 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
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|