Dale , id love to take you on qrp with a crappy low wire of mine fro SD!! But
not planning a full effort at this time anyhow
Have fun!
73 Todd WD0T
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 4, 2013, at 7:20 PM, cq-contest-request@contesting.com wrote:
> Send CQ-Contest mailing list submissions to
> cq-contest@contesting.com
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> cq-contest-request@contesting.com
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> cq-contest-owner@contesting.com
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of CQ-Contest digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: In the light of the 2013 CQ WW DX CW Claimed scores.
> (Ron Notarius W3WN)
> 2. Challenge Contesting (Jack Haverty.)
> 3. Re: In the light of the 2013 CQ WW DX CW Claimedscores.
> (Roberto Rey)
> 4. Re: In the light of the 2013 CQ WW DX CW Claimed scores.
> (Martin , LU5DX)
> 5. QSLs (Hal Kennedy)
> 6. Re: In the light of the 2013 CQ WW DX CW Claimed scores.
> (Shane Mattson-->K1ZR)
> 7. In the light of the 2013 CQ WW DX CW Claimedscores.
> (Doug Renwick)
> 8. Re: Challenge Contesting (Dale Putnam)
> 9. Re: In the light of the 2013 CQ WW DX CW Claimedscores.
> (W0MU Mike Fatchett)
> 10. Re: In the light of the 2013 CQ WW DX CW Claimedscores.
> (steve.root@culligan4water.com)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2013 12:59:18 -0600 (CST)
> From: Ron Notarius W3WN <wn3vaw@verizon.net>
> To: cq-contest@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] In the light of the 2013 CQ WW DX CW Claimed
> scores.
> Message-ID: <11806710.643244.1386183558621.JavaMail.root@vms170015>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> Oh?
>
> Which scores? Why do you think they're unexplainable?
>
> A blanket assertion like this without details directly or indirectly smears,
> or could smear, the reputations quite a few operators.
>
> While I can't speak for anyone else, I'd certainly want more information
> about what is allegedly happening before even beginning to consider revamps
> or changes, let alone agreeing to them.
>
> 73
>
>
> On 12/04/13, Martin , LU5DX wrote:
>
> I really hope at least some of you would agree that a revamp of the
> observer program is needed.
>
> There are scores that are really unexplainable.
>
> Hopefully cheaters will get disqualified (again).
>
> Vy 73.
>
> Martin, LU5DX
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 11:30:37 -0800
> From: "Jack Haverty." <k3fiv@arrl.net>
> To: cq contest <cq-contest@contesting.com>
> Subject: [CQ-Contest] Challenge Contesting
> Message-ID:
> <CAJLkZPm74Ck4ooJrHZHcOU11JO0pFn1YxRepzW5cwDDcn9sKCA@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> The "don't fix what's not broken" and the "we'll never find a way that's
> fair" observations have a lot of merit. Maybe we're working on an
> unsolvable or nonexistent problem.
>
> Still, a lot of us seem to be unhappy. Maybe it's worth thinking about how
> to solve that problem, without flailing to change something that isn't
> broken and we don't think we can fix, and haven't had much success in
> changing anyway.
>
> After all the recent discussions rattled around in my head for a while, a
> new thought just popped up. At least I think it's new, at least to
> Radiosport, but it's an ancient idea elsewhere. Maybe it's been tried
> before and failed? KE3X's analysis of Gaming was especially useful. So
> here's an idea for the mill.....
>
> The focus of our unhappiness seems to be a perception that "it's not
> fair". Many of us think it's not fair, but don't agree on how to make it
> more fair. We still participate, and maybe send in logs, but we seek the
> experience of actually being in a fair fight, pitting ourselves against
> contestants like ourselves, and comparing our performance against theirs in
> a fair battle.
>
> In any contest, there are probably always at least a few people who I would
> agree are enough like me that competing with them would be a fair battle.
> The problem is that I can't find them. When I see the long list of
> scores, I can't tell which of those callsigns are the people who were like
> me, to see how I did in the company of my peers.
>
> Various "categories" split up the contestants into groups, but I still
> believe that no matter what group I am in, there are others in there with
> an unfair advantage. The only contestants who don't have this problem are
> the ones who have committed the time and money, or are simply lucky enough
> to live in the right place, to be "world class" in the particular contest's
> "unfair" scoring scheme.
>
> They have sacrificed a lot to get in that situation and they enjoy battling
> with others like them. More power to them. But the rest of us would still
> like to enjoy the experience of competing, against our peers, in a fair
> fight. How do we do that, in existing contests, without changing the
> contest at all?
>
> An idea popped into my head. I'll call it Challenge Contesting. The idea
> is that people in a contest compete with other people in the contest who
> are, in their own opinion, sufficiently like them to make it a fair
> fight. The key words are "in their own opinion". I'll compete with you
> if I think your situation is enough like mine that it's fair - whatever I
> think "fair" means. Of course you also have to think that it's fair -
> whatever you think that "fair" means. I think I have a decent shot at
> beating you. You think you have a decent shot at beating me. You're on.
> Meet me in the Alley in 20 minutes! It's a Challenge!
>
> Others might decide to join in, turning our Duel into a Brawl. But if a
> 300 pound wrestling champion, or a wiry guy wearing a black belt shows up,
> the rest of us might just flee for our lives. We may enjoy a fair fight,
> but we're not stupid.
>
> If you don't like fighting, think of something like chess matches. The
> point is that we enjoy a fair competition, measuring our performance
> against our peers. Could we bring that experience into contesting for the
> masses in addition to the top tier?
>
> To issue a Challenge in a radio contest, I need to know something about
> you. I won't "throw down the glove" until I know enough to believe I'm
> entering a fair fight. You also need to know about me. Then we need to
> both agree to compete. I Challenge you. You Accept. Meet me in the
> Alley. Game on.
>
> Perhaps another contestant notices our Challenge and thinks "Hey, I'm like
> those guys but I'm better than them. I Challenge both of them!" If we
> both agree that it's fair - whatever we think "fair" means to us - then we
> Accept. It'll be a three-way battle, within a group that all agree is fair
> - whatever fair means to each individual.
>
> More people might similarly Challenge us and we might Accept them. We
> don't Accept that wrestling champion, or the guy we suspect is a Cheater,
> or anybody else unless we think it's fair. Although even a one-on-one
> fight is fun, in Radiosport it would probably be more fun with more people
> competing -- but all would agree that it's a fair fight. Duels could
> readily evolve into Brawls, and that would be a good thing, more fun for
> all. Because of the nature of Radio, we could even compete in several
> Brawls at the same time in that same Alley. Sounds like Fun.
>
> So, how would we actually do this? It seems that some interesting
> mechanisms are already in place. We could do it just by email or forums
> like this one to start. That might get unwieldy if Challenges become
> popular. There are already web sites that allow you to register your
> station characteristics - where it is, what equipment you have, etc. I
> probably need more information in order to judge whether or not the "other
> guy" is enough like me so that I consider it fair. We'd have to come up
> with that list. What do you want to know about me before you Challenge me,
> or Accept my Challenge?
>
> We already have some mechanisms for registering our intentions before the
> start of a contest - e.g., registering teams in some contests. So we need
> a similar mechanism to enable the people who want to compete in one (or
> more) Challenges, either Duels or Brawls to find each other.
>
> We like to talk about our conquests afterward. We already have mechanisms
> such as 3830 to boast after the battle subsides. Some similar mechanism
> could help us figure out how we did in that Alley shortly after the dust
> settles.
>
> It seems like it should be relatively easy and straightforward for someone
> with the skills to put together similar mechanisms for Challenge
> Contesting. Contest organizers might do it, but they don't have to.
> Anybody can set up the mechanisms to arrange for epic battles. The
> contest builds the Alley. We do battle in it.
>
> We don't have to change existing contest rules at all. They are just part
> of the framework - they tell us about the Alley in which we're going to
> settle once and for all that I'm better than you in a fair fight.
>
> So, ... Here's an example. I'm K3FIV. I'll be operating from grid
> CM88eu, at a height of 400 feet ASL. I have a Flex-3000, 100 watts, and an
> 80M Carolina Windom hung between 2 trees at 30 feet, which i use on 80
> through 10. I'm in a rural area so there's very little RF noise. I can
> find maybe 12 hours, no more, in a weekend to do battle. I can use the
> Internet, but I'll agree not to if you want that to Challenge me. My rig
> has a Panadapter, which I find very helpful in contests, but I don't use a
> Skimmer. I've been licensed since 1963. I can still do CW but it gets
> real tough above 28wpm. Want to know anything else? Think you can beat
> me?
>
> Note that mechanisms for arranging Challenges might be readily adapted to
> other purposes. For example, instead of arranging for a collection of
> entrants to compete against each other, we could use similar mechanisms to
> arrange for a collection of entrants to act as a Team. Teams could form
> and then Challenge other Teams just as individuals do, and have fun in a
> fair - to them - competition. A Team mostly located in the Caribbean
> might Challenge a Team mostly located on the US East Coast. With apologies
> to West Side Story, we might name those Teams the Sharks and the Jets. It
> could be an epic battle. It could be an annual event. It could be a lot
> of fun both to participate and to watch.
>
> Challenges are somewhat like existing Categories, but offer much more
> flexibility. Most people don't think it's fair to compete against someone
> in a great location. But can your stacked-beams on a 120 foot tower fed
> by massive amps in the hinterlands beat a vacationing ham on a Caribbean
> island with a 100 watt transceiver and a Buddipole?
>
> Does your nasty HOA restrict you to stealth antennas? There are others
> like you. Think you're better than them?
>
> Do you have a super station but can't spend more than 12 hours in the
> chair? That young whippersnapper with a tribander and transceiver can
> compete all weekend and thinks he can beat you? What do you think?
>
> Challenge and find out! If you both think it's a fair fight, it will be
> fun.
>
> Anybody out there want to build some Challenge machinery? In much of the
> world it's winter now, maybe a good time to be inside at your computer
> rather than up wielding aluminum on a tower. It's probably also more fun
> than grousing about the status quo. Tell us all where the website is for
> setting up Challenges!
>
> So, we don't need to change rules or build new contests to have more fun.
> The Alleys are already there. We may not like them, but as long as we
> agree that it's a fair fight, why not. Game on?
>
> 73,
> /Jack de K3FIV
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 14:33:26 -0500
> From: "Roberto Rey" <cwdude@gmail.com>
> To: "Ron Notarius W3WN" <wn3vaw@verizon.net>,
> <cq-contest@contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] In the light of the 2013 CQ WW DX CW
> Claimedscores.
> Message-ID: <91782CECDDCC475181599D2E25A91E7F@satto8dae07c29>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> reply-type=original
>
> I agree just saying "I want a new scoring system because scores are
> unexplainable and people cheat" is irresponsible.. If somebody has proof of
> cheatingyou need to just flat out say it . ... .it's very easy to smear
> people's reputation..but you need to talk the talk!
>
> 73 de HK3CW Rob
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ron Notarius W3WN" <wn3vaw@verizon.net>
> To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 1:59 PM
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] In the light of the 2013 CQ WW DX CW
> Claimedscores.
>
>
>> Oh?
>>
>> Which scores? Why do you think they're unexplainable?
>>
>> A blanket assertion like this without details directly or indirectly
>> smears, or could smear, the reputations quite a few operators.
>>
>> While I can't speak for anyone else, I'd certainly want more information
>> about what is allegedly happening before even beginning to consider
>> revamps or changes, let alone agreeing to them.
>>
>> 73
>>
>>
>> On 12/04/13, Martin , LU5DX wrote:
>>
>> I really hope at least some of you would agree that a revamp of the
>> observer program is needed.
>>
>> There are scores that are really unexplainable.
>>
>> Hopefully cheaters will get disqualified (again).
>>
>> Vy 73.
>>
>> Martin, LU5DX
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 17:53:05 -0200
> From: "Martin , LU5DX" <lu5dx@lucg.com.ar>
> To: Ron Notarius W3WN <wn3vaw@verizon.net>
> Cc: CQ-Contest <cq-contest@contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] In the light of the 2013 CQ WW DX CW Claimed
> scores.
> Message-ID:
> <CAOE3YJQSjLdt5NF_HyXcoV8CtNrvA5XEsGujGKVmUSFPsL9DZQ@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Ron.
> It's pretty obvious the score I am talking about.
> Take a look at the SOAB HP scores and you'll quickly realize who I am
> talking about.
> And his score is way too unexplainable because it is not likely to happen
> that way. A station in Zone 8 has very few chances to win over a station in
> zone 9. Specially a zone 9 station being operated by a really good op, with
> a very good setup.
> And even less, to finish with such a big advantage about other station in
> zone 8 whose op has been doing SOAB HP for years from the very same
> location, a very skilled op, who operated for 47 hours, with more
> aluminum, with better RX antennas for the low bands, etc, etc.
> However, what reputation are you talking about?
> Our hobby has been hammered for years by professional cheaters:
> Power abuse,
> Packet abuse,
> Log massaging,
> Ghost Operators
> Ghost Locations
> Multiple Signals
> Rubber Clocking
> Category hopping
> What else?
>
> So yes, Most people are honest. Not so, for the ones competing at a high
> level.
> So please don't be so overwhelmed by my assertions.
>
> 73.
>
> Martin, LU5DX
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:59 PM, Ron Notarius W3WN <wn3vaw@verizon.net>wrote:
>
>> Oh?
>>
>> Which scores? Why do you think they're unexplainable?
>>
>> A blanket assertion like this without details directly or indirectly
>> smears, or could smear, the reputations quite a few operators.
>>
>> While I can't speak for anyone else, I'd certainly want more information
>> about what is allegedly happening before even beginning to consider revamps
>> or changes, let alone agreeing to them.
>>
>> 73
>>
>>
>> On 12/04/13, Martin , LU5DX wrote:
>>
>> I really hope at least some of you would agree that a revamp of the
>> observer program is needed.
>>
>> There are scores that are really unexplainable.
>>
>> Hopefully cheaters will get disqualified (again).
>>
>> Vy 73.
>>
>> Martin, LU5DX
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2013 15:01:17 -0500
> From: Hal Kennedy <halken@comcast.net>
> To: cq-contest@contesting.com
> Subject: [CQ-Contest] QSLs
> Message-ID: <529F8A0D.1050603@comcast.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Please keep them coming. I have 225,000 Qs in LOTW, confirmations there
> are always welcome. But, I would prefer a paper card. I have a 160 QSL
> scrapbook I like to show visitors - can't do that by rolling a chair up
> to DX4WIN. I own a Kindle but a real book or magazine plus a cup of
> coffee beats it hands down.
>
> All QSLs answered, with pleasure. I am pleased you want my card - I'd
> like you to have it. Dupes are just fine, particularly if you have
> changed the front picture lately.
>
> 73
> Hal N4GG
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 20:51:14 +0000 (UTC)
> From: "Shane Mattson-->K1ZR" <k1zr@comcast.net>
> To: LU5DX Martin <lu5dx@lucg.com.ar>
> Cc: CQ-Contest <cq-contest@contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] In the light of the 2013 CQ WW DX CW Claimed
> scores.
> Message-ID:
> <872011594.11418782.1386190274341.JavaMail.root@comcast.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
>
>
> This thread is getting ridiculous....we're not even past the log checking
> process and?someone is?accusing another of cheating!? I strongly suggest that
> if you have any concerns related to one's operation that you email the
> contest organizer privately (in this case K5ZD) and let?them qualify
> each?situation?accordingly??This is ludicrous.?
>
>
> Shane K1ZR
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: "LU5DX Martin" <lu5dx@lucg.com.ar>
> To: "Ron Notarius W3WN" <wn3vaw@verizon.net>
> Cc: "CQ-Contest" <cq-contest@contesting.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 4, 2013 2:53:05 PM
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] In the light of the 2013 CQ WW DX CW
> Claimed????????scores.
>
> Ron.
> It's pretty obvious the score I am talking about.
> Take a look at the SOAB HP scores and you'll quickly realize who I am
> talking about.
> And his score is way too unexplainable because it is ?not likely to happen
> that way. A station in Zone 8 has very few chances to win over a station in
> zone 9. Specially a zone 9 station being operated by a really good op, with
> a very good setup.
> And even less, ?to finish with ?such a big advantage about other station in
> zone 8 whose op has been doing SOAB HP for years from the very same
> location, ?a very skilled op, who operated for 47 hours, with more
> aluminum, with better RX antennas for the low bands, etc, etc.
> However, what reputation are you talking about?
> Our hobby has been hammered for years by professional cheaters:
> Power abuse,
> Packet abuse,
> Log massaging,
> Ghost Operators
> Ghost Locations
> Multiple Signals
> Rubber Clocking
> Category hopping
> What else?
>
> So yes, Most people are honest. Not so, for the ones competing at a high
> level.
> So please don't be so overwhelmed by my assertions.
>
> 73.
>
> Martin, LU5DX
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:59 PM, Ron Notarius W3WN <wn3vaw@verizon.net>wrote:
>
>> Oh?
>>
>> Which scores? ?Why do you think they're unexplainable?
>>
>> A blanket assertion like this without details directly or indirectly
>> smears, or could smear, the reputations quite a few operators.
>>
>> While I can't speak for anyone else, I'd certainly want more information
>> about what is allegedly happening before even beginning to consider revamps
>> or changes, let alone agreeing to them.
>>
>> 73
>>
>>
>> On 12/04/13, Martin , LU5DX wrote:
>>
>> I really hope at least some of you would agree that a revamp of the
>> observer program is needed.
>>
>> There are scores that are really unexplainable.
>>
>> Hopefully cheaters will get disqualified (again).
>>
>> Vy 73.
>>
>> Martin, LU5DX
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 16:25:50 -0600
> From: "Doug Renwick" <ve5ra@sasktel.net>
> To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
> Subject: [CQ-Contest] In the light of the 2013 CQ WW DX CW
> Claimedscores.
> Message-ID: <817AFC5CB60A4CE4A5B54AEAA0E38E32@DOUG8PC>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Why limit yourselves to 40 zones? Redraw the map into say 80 or 100 zones
> based say on amateur population. Just a thought.
> Doug
>
>
>
> ---
> This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus
> protection is active.
> http://www.avast.com
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 15:59:46 -0700
> From: Dale Putnam <daleputnam@hotmail.com>
> To: Jack Haverty. <k3fiv@arrl.net>, "cq-contest@contesting.com"
> <cq-contest@contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Challenge Contesting
> Message-ID: <COL127-W18BA6E91DD01C162E1285D0D40@phx.gbl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Now this... makes sense!
> and here's my challange:QRP- no more than a measured 5 watts out.Antenna -
> two wire and one verticalage of op - retiredLocation - Wy .... and I don't
> believe that "WY" adds any db to my signalsingle op - single radio - single
> band - NO assistance
> UP for either 160 or 10 either one.. within the next two weeks.ANYONE????
> Have a great day,
>
>
> --... ...--
> Dale - WC7S in Wy
>
>
>
>
>> Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 11:30:37 -0800
>> From: k3fiv@arrl.net
>> To: cq-contest@contesting.com
>> Subject: [CQ-Contest] Challenge Contesting
>>
>> The "don't fix what's not broken" and the "we'll never find a way that's
>> fair" observations have a lot of merit. Maybe we're working on an
>> unsolvable or nonexistent problem.
>>
>> Still, a lot of us seem to be unhappy. Maybe it's worth thinking about how
>> to solve that problem, without flailing to change something that isn't
>> broken and we don't think we can fix, and haven't had much success in
>> changing anyway.
>>
>> After all the recent discussions rattled around in my head for a while, a
>> new thought just popped up. At least I think it's new, at least to
>> Radiosport, but it's an ancient idea elsewhere. Maybe it's been tried
>> before and failed? KE3X's analysis of Gaming was especially useful. So
>> here's an idea for the mill.....
>>
>> The focus of our unhappiness seems to be a perception that "it's not
>> fair". Many of us think it's not fair, but don't agree on how to make it
>> more fair. We still participate, and maybe send in logs, but we seek the
>> experience of actually being in a fair fight, pitting ourselves against
>> contestants like ourselves, and comparing our performance against theirs in
>> a fair battle.
>>
>> In any contest, there are probably always at least a few people who I would
>> agree are enough like me that competing with them would be a fair battle.
>> The problem is that I can't find them. When I see the long list of
>> scores, I can't tell which of those callsigns are the people who were like
>> me, to see how I did in the company of my peers.
>>
>> Various "categories" split up the contestants into groups, but I still
>> believe that no matter what group I am in, there are others in there with
>> an unfair advantage. The only contestants who don't have this problem are
>> the ones who have committed the time and money, or are simply lucky enough
>> to live in the right place, to be "world class" in the particular contest's
>> "unfair" scoring scheme.
>>
>> They have sacrificed a lot to get in that situation and they enjoy battling
>> with others like them. More power to them. But the rest of us would still
>> like to enjoy the experience of competing, against our peers, in a fair
>> fight. How do we do that, in existing contests, without changing the
>> contest at all?
>>
>> An idea popped into my head. I'll call it Challenge Contesting. The idea
>> is that people in a contest compete with other people in the contest who
>> are, in their own opinion, sufficiently like them to make it a fair
>> fight. The key words are "in their own opinion". I'll compete with you
>> if I think your situation is enough like mine that it's fair - whatever I
>> think "fair" means. Of course you also have to think that it's fair -
>> whatever you think that "fair" means. I think I have a decent shot at
>> beating you. You think you have a decent shot at beating me. You're on.
>> Meet me in the Alley in 20 minutes! It's a Challenge!
>>
>> Others might decide to join in, turning our Duel into a Brawl. But if a
>> 300 pound wrestling champion, or a wiry guy wearing a black belt shows up,
>> the rest of us might just flee for our lives. We may enjoy a fair fight,
>> but we're not stupid.
>>
>> If you don't like fighting, think of something like chess matches. The
>> point is that we enjoy a fair competition, measuring our performance
>> against our peers. Could we bring that experience into contesting for the
>> masses in addition to the top tier?
>>
>> To issue a Challenge in a radio contest, I need to know something about
>> you. I won't "throw down the glove" until I know enough to believe I'm
>> entering a fair fight. You also need to know about me. Then we need to
>> both agree to compete. I Challenge you. You Accept. Meet me in the
>> Alley. Game on.
>>
>> Perhaps another contestant notices our Challenge and thinks "Hey, I'm like
>> those guys but I'm better than them. I Challenge both of them!" If we
>> both agree that it's fair - whatever we think "fair" means to us - then we
>> Accept. It'll be a three-way battle, within a group that all agree is fair
>> - whatever fair means to each individual.
>>
>> More people might similarly Challenge us and we might Accept them. We
>> don't Accept that wrestling champion, or the guy we suspect is a Cheater,
>> or anybody else unless we think it's fair. Although even a one-on-one
>> fight is fun, in Radiosport it would probably be more fun with more people
>> competing -- but all would agree that it's a fair fight. Duels could
>> readily evolve into Brawls, and that would be a good thing, more fun for
>> all. Because of the nature of Radio, we could even compete in several
>> Brawls at the same time in that same Alley. Sounds like Fun.
>>
>> So, how would we actually do this? It seems that some interesting
>> mechanisms are already in place. We could do it just by email or forums
>> like this one to start. That might get unwieldy if Challenges become
>> popular. There are already web sites that allow you to register your
>> station characteristics - where it is, what equipment you have, etc. I
>> probably need more information in order to judge whether or not the "other
>> guy" is enough like me so that I consider it fair. We'd have to come up
>> with that list. What do you want to know about me before you Challenge me,
>> or Accept my Challenge?
>>
>> We already have some mechanisms for registering our intentions before the
>> start of a contest - e.g., registering teams in some contests. So we need
>> a similar mechanism to enable the people who want to compete in one (or
>> more) Challenges, either Duels or Brawls to find each other.
>>
>> We like to talk about our conquests afterward. We already have mechanisms
>> such as 3830 to boast after the battle subsides. Some similar mechanism
>> could help us figure out how we did in that Alley shortly after the dust
>> settles.
>>
>> It seems like it should be relatively easy and straightforward for someone
>> with the skills to put together similar mechanisms for Challenge
>> Contesting. Contest organizers might do it, but they don't have to.
>> Anybody can set up the mechanisms to arrange for epic battles. The
>> contest builds the Alley. We do battle in it.
>>
>> We don't have to change existing contest rules at all. They are just part
>> of the framework - they tell us about the Alley in which we're going to
>> settle once and for all that I'm better than you in a fair fight.
>>
>> So, ... Here's an example. I'm K3FIV. I'll be operating from grid
>> CM88eu, at a height of 400 feet ASL. I have a Flex-3000, 100 watts, and an
>> 80M Carolina Windom hung between 2 trees at 30 feet, which i use on 80
>> through 10. I'm in a rural area so there's very little RF noise. I can
>> find maybe 12 hours, no more, in a weekend to do battle. I can use the
>> Internet, but I'll agree not to if you want that to Challenge me. My rig
>> has a Panadapter, which I find very helpful in contests, but I don't use a
>> Skimmer. I've been licensed since 1963. I can still do CW but it gets
>> real tough above 28wpm. Want to know anything else? Think you can beat
>> me?
>>
>> Note that mechanisms for arranging Challenges might be readily adapted to
>> other purposes. For example, instead of arranging for a collection of
>> entrants to compete against each other, we could use similar mechanisms to
>> arrange for a collection of entrants to act as a Team. Teams could form
>> and then Challenge other Teams just as individuals do, and have fun in a
>> fair - to them - competition. A Team mostly located in the Caribbean
>> might Challenge a Team mostly located on the US East Coast. With apologies
>> to West Side Story, we might name those Teams the Sharks and the Jets. It
>> could be an epic battle. It could be an annual event. It could be a lot
>> of fun both to participate and to watch.
>>
>> Challenges are somewhat like existing Categories, but offer much more
>> flexibility. Most people don't think it's fair to compete against someone
>> in a great location. But can your stacked-beams on a 120 foot tower fed
>> by massive amps in the hinterlands beat a vacationing ham on a Caribbean
>> island with a 100 watt transceiver and a Buddipole?
>>
>> Does your nasty HOA restrict you to stealth antennas? There are others
>> like you. Think you're better than them?
>>
>> Do you have a super station but can't spend more than 12 hours in the
>> chair? That young whippersnapper with a tribander and transceiver can
>> compete all weekend and thinks he can beat you? What do you think?
>>
>> Challenge and find out! If you both think it's a fair fight, it will be
>> fun.
>>
>> Anybody out there want to build some Challenge machinery? In much of the
>> world it's winter now, maybe a good time to be inside at your computer
>> rather than up wielding aluminum on a tower. It's probably also more fun
>> than grousing about the status quo. Tell us all where the website is for
>> setting up Challenges!
>>
>> So, we don't need to change rules or build new contests to have more fun.
>> The Alleys are already there. We may not like them, but as long as we
>> agree that it's a fair fight, why not. Game on?
>>
>> 73,
>> /Jack de K3FIV
>> _______________________________________________
>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2013 16:25:19 -0700
> From: W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu@w0mu.com>
> To: cq-contest@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] In the light of the 2013 CQ WW DX CW
> Claimedscores.
> Message-ID: <529FB9DF.3020508@w0mu.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> An excellent creative option!
>
> Mike W0MU
>
> On 12/4/2013 3:25 PM, Doug Renwick wrote:
>> Why limit yourselves to 40 zones? Redraw the map into say 80 or 100 zones
>> based say on amateur population. Just a thought.
>> Doug
>>
>>
>>
>> ---
>> This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus
>> protection is active.
>> http://www.avast.com
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2013 00:45:48 +0000
> From: steve.root@culligan4water.com
> To: "Doug Renwick" <ve5ra@sasktel.net>, cq-contest@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] In the light of the 2013 CQ WW DX CW
> Claimedscores.
> Message-ID: <W424528368250361386204348@atl4webmail22>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> How about 80 or 100 zones based on real world propagation?
>
> 73 SR
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Doug Renwick [mailto:ve5ra@sasktel.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 4, 2013 05:25 PM
> To: cq-contest@contesting.com
> Subject: [CQ-Contest] In the light of the 2013 CQ WW DX CW Claimedscores.
>
> Why limit yourselves to 40 zones? Redraw the map into say 80 or 100
> zonesbased say on amateur population. Just a thought.Doug---This email is
> free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is
> active.http://www.avast.com_______________________________________________CQ-Contest
> mailing
> listCQ-Contest@contesting.comhttp://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of CQ-Contest Digest, Vol 132, Issue 12
> *******************************************
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|