CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] [cac-i:2853] Re: NCJ Article RE: Sweepstakes Change Sug

To: "'W0MU Mike Fatchett'" <w0mu@w0mu.com>, <cq-contest@contesting.com>, <cac-i@reflector.arrl.org>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] [cac-i:2853] Re: NCJ Article RE: Sweepstakes Change Suggestions
From: "David B. Ritchie" <dbritchie@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 13:00:42 -0700
List-post: <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
All:
I would not be in favor of making any changes to one mode but not both modes - 
the only difference in the rules for CW vs SSB should be the mode you are 
required to use to make the contacts.  If some changes are deemed potentially 
desirable for both modes I would like to consider that.  I would be in favor of 
considering a third mode for SS:  RTTY - but that might be too many contests.  
I like SS because it IS hard - with CQWW all you have to do is type in the 
callsign and the computer does the rest.  With SS you actually have to pay 
attention.  Prefill files add a challenge - but enough people shake it up that 
if you don't pay attention you will still be in trouble with a prefill file.  
My 2 cents

David Ritchie W6DR PAC DIV CAC REP

-----Original Message-----
From: cac-i [mailto:cac-i-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] On Behalf Of W0MU Mike 
Fatchett
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2018 8:02 AM
To: cq-contest@contesting.com; cac-i@reflector.arrl.org
Subject: [cac-i:2853] Re: [CQ-Contest] NCJ Article RE: Sweepstakes Change 
Suggestions

I don't receive the NCJ so I have not read the article.  What I gather is that 
most people feel that the SSB part of the contest is ok but the CW part is not. 
 If most people feel that SSB fine the way it is, are people suggesting we make 
sweeping changes to fix the CW portion and then possibly breaking both?

The exchange is long.  It makes the contest different.  This is good. As stated 
by many we have plenty of rate contests where copying is not part of the 
contest.

I have heard of lots of ideas but none of them really address the issue which 
is getting more people involved on the CW side.  Their are plenty of people 
trying CW or are proficient enough at slower speeds.    Most of the ideas allow 
more contacts from the same participants on other bands or by using other 
callsigns.    The reason the radio/callsign rules were put in place as I 
understand it, that when the club competitions were fierce, I don't thing they 
are as much any more, people would use other calls and only work their club 
members.  I get that.  Good for them, but not good for the overall health of 
the contest.  I am sure people still do it, tough to catch.  SO2R changed much 
of contesting, tough to put it back in the black box.

Is the CW solution a simple as slowing down and encouraging new or less 
competent cw ops to want to call you or is the goal to run at 45wpm and work 
nobody and listen to endless CQ's?  Will slowing down even help? Maybe the ARRL 
needs to print some articles on encouraging people to try SS CW and explaining 
it better?

The last couple hours of SS can be pretty fun.  Many people get on just for 
that period.

Who are we fixing the contest for?  The top 50  or 100 that are the real 
competitors or are we making it fun and better for all?

What we could be doing is breaking down the classes and putting the SO2 elite 
ops in one category and then trying to figure out how to put the rest in 
appropriate categories so we can do a better job at acknowledging them and 
creating competition with similar stations and skills.

NAQP is great for 12 hours.  How would it be for 24 hours.  I would suggest 
that it would get pretty slow on CW.  You can always milk SSB contacts on open 
bands.   Maybe the NAQP folks should give a 24 hour contest a try and see how 
it goes.  NAQP has been around a long time now if it was be so great, why has 
it never been tried?

Changing for the sake of change is not a good idea.   Is the contest really 
broke?  I don't think so.  Could it be improved?  Maybe. Could we make it 
worse? easily!  Making large changes would change what the contest is.  I don't 
think that is a good idea.


W0MU



_______________________________________________
cac-i mailing list
cac-i@reflector.arrl.org
https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/cac-i

_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>