Below are my comments on the proposed changes. First of all, kudos to K5ZD
and the Committee for continually adjusting the rules to meet changing
conditions and also making them available for comment.
1) Distance change - As one of those geographically challenged
stations that currently resides outside the "Circle" of any major contest
club, I applaud the proposed increase to 200 miles. As a result of this
change, I would be within the arc of at least one large club. As shown by
the splintering of much of the SECC, it is clear that a large circle is
probably unsustainable for very long as members desire more local groupings
and will subdivide. At the risk of beating a dead horse, why not reconsider
the rule limiting multiple log submissions, i.e. allow a log to be submitted
to one club in each category, e.g. local, medium, large? This would help
foster the development of local groups by encouraging log submissions. It
might also help save some of the regional clubs that are being splintered
off.
2) Recording of contest - Requesting recordings after the contest
creates a lot of problems. I suggest that everyone who wants to be eligible
for any post-contest awards must record the contest, even though the vast
majority of people will never need or use the recordings. This assumes that
you techies come up with an easy way of doing such and incorporating it into
logging software. Based on earlier comments, it looks like this will be no
problem.
3) Changing of log after a QSO is completed - I fear this restriction
is overkill. To require a recording of the contest but then saying you
can't use it to correct a log seems a bit ridiculous. This assumes that
someone (certainly not me) is devoted enough to go back and
listen to the whole log just to pick up a few changes. But, this is an
extreme case. What about realizing that the guy who sent you "V44HS" meant
to send "V44HH" but you don't pick up the error until you have worked V44HH,
not V44HS, on three other bands. Is it cheating to make that change "after
the QSO is completed"? What about the fat fingered typo that you don't see
until you print out a list of QSOs and see that V44HHH is really V44HH?
What about the case where the op on the mult rig yells out "That was V44HH,
not V44HS" but you have just hit Enter? How much log massaging can one do
in the time allowed being the end of the contest and log submission? Don't
we allow the use of SuperCheckPartial before the QSO is completed? What if
one's PC is slow and you don't get the answer until after hitting enter?
Why not just prohibit "extensive" log editing and leave the definition up to
the committee?
4) SuperCheckPartial - I gather the intent is not to do away with
this. Probably some editing of the definition of what is allowed could
remove this concern.
5) Accurate frequency - I see no problem with this but "accurate" must
be defined. Is one decimal place "accurate". Probably, the log checkers are
the ones who can tell what "accuracy" is. I wonder too if this should be
defined as "precision" rather than "accurate".
So endeth my time on the soapbox.
Dennis, K2SX
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|