This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------1242120736093B7AFA3006AA
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
--------------1242120736093B7AFA3006AA
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Return-Path: <>
To: k4bai@worldnet.att.net
From: Mail Administrator <Postmaster@worldnet.att.net>
Reply-To: Mail Administrator <Postmaster@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Mail System Error - Returned Mail
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 18:35:36 +0000
Message-ID: <20010309183536.VPFG13515.mtiwmhc26.worldnet.att.net@mtiwmhc26>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/report;
report-type=delivery-status;
Boundary="===========================_ _=
1271057(13515)984162936"
--===========================_ _= 1271057(13515)984162936
Content-Type: text/plain
This Message was undeliverable due to the following reason:
Your message was not delivered because the destination computer was
not found. Carefully check that it was spelled correctly and try
sending it again if there were any mistakes.
It is also possible that a network problem caused this situation,
so if you are sure the address is correct you might want to try to
send it again. If the problem continues, contact your friendly
system administrator.
Host cotesting.com not found
The following recipients did not receive this message:
<secc@cotesting.com>
Please reply to Postmaster@worldnet.att.net
if you feel this message to be in error.
--===========================_ _= 1271057(13515)984162936
Content-Type: message/delivery-status
Reporting-MTA: dns; mtiwmhc26.worldnet.att.net
Arrival-Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 18:35:36 +0000
Received-From-MTA: dns; worldnet.att.net (12.77.233.145)
Final-Recipient: RFC822; <secc@cotesting.com>
Action: failed
Status: 5.1.2
Remote-MTA: dns; cotesting.com
--===========================_ _= 1271057(13515)984162936
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Received: from worldnet.att.net ([12.77.233.145])
by mtiwmhc26.worldnet.att.net
(InterMail vM.4.01.03.16 201-229-121-116-20010115) with ESMTP
id
<20010309183535.VPFB13515.mtiwmhc26.worldnet.att.net@worldnet.att.net>;
Fri, 9 Mar 2001 18:35:35 +0000
Message-ID: <3AA92240.7369B2D0@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 13:34:41 -0500
From: John Laney <k4bai@worldnet.att.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win98; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Gary Breed <gary@noblepub.com>, secc@cotesting.com
Subject: Re: [SECC] Contest rules
References: <004101c0a8aa$29904000$0f0210ac@gary>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Gary: I am generally opposed to band change limits for single ops. There
is a 15 minute limit in WAE (with an exception for a quick change for a
new mult). It means that, if you go to 80 meters and make one contact,
you must stay there for 15 minutes, even if there is no more activity on
the band. The same is true for that last change to 40 meters after
European sunrise. The same is true for 10 meters during low parts of the
cycle. It discourages use of marginal bands and cuts down on the possible
contacts and multipliers for everyone. Other contests have the same (or a
10 minute rule) for single ops and I think it is a bad idea.
One thing about the Stew Perry rules that is bad is the power multiplier.
That also appears in several state QSO party rules. I have no problem
with different awards for three different power levels. What I am talking
about now is a multiplier that encourages stations to use less power in
order to maximize score. That means that fewer contacts will made and it
will be harder and will take more time to make them. So, one must run 5
watts or maybe 100 watts to win the contest, but one will make fewer
QSOs. The more remote stations (VK, ZL, Europe, etc) will have fewer QSOs
and fewer DX QSOs than if everyone could run the maximum power allowed by
his country, his license class, and his equipment. I almost always run
high power (particularly on 160 meters) to increase my enjoyment of the
contest and to increase the possibilty that I will make a QSO with someone
who will actually appreciate it. I just got a QSL from NV7U for a
160-meter QSO from Idaho where he was running 2 1/2 watts and he needs GA
for WAS on 160. That contact would not have been possible if I had been
conforming to a point maximizing rule that required me to run 5 watts (or
maybe even 100 watts).
Those are my two prinicpal observations of contest rules that need
re-thinking. I think the purpose of each contest is to encourage the most
possible contacts, the most possible countries, the most possible
counties, etc. and these two rules detract from that.
I am sure you recognize, but just to make myself clear to others, I am NOT
opposed to QRP contests as such or to 100 watt limit contests such as NAQP
either. Those are fine. But the playing feel is level and no one is
required to artifically limit QSOs to maximize a score. (I do recognize
that some QRP contests do the same thing, but I haven't felt strongly
about that. Almost never does someone running 1 watt beat a station
running 5 watts in a QRP contest, despite a power multiplier.)
73, John, K4BAI.
Gary Breed wrote:
> Now that the contest season is winding down, the usual discussion
> of changing rules has come up...Non-US stations wishing they had
> extra time in the CQWW 160 contests, contest exhanges, changing the
> definition of "assisted," SO2R, etc.
>
> Is there any consensus among SECC members on any issue that we want
> to bring to the attention of contest organizers?
> ___________________
>
> I have no big issues on my personal agenda. Taken as a whole, the
> most popular contests represent a wide range of rules, bands, DX or
> domestic emphasis, exchange formats and lengths. In general, I am
> not in favor of making contest more "alike." The long SS exchange is
> part of the game, so is the QSY rule in Sprint and the ability to
> last 48 hours in CQWW and ARRL DX.
>
> I applaud the Stew Perry founders for creating a contest that changes
> geographical influences, and the WPX sponsors for experimenting with
> T/S and Newbie categories. Perhaps there are some other ways to make
> small changes that maintain variety and encourage more participation.
>
> Although I have implemented SO2R at my station, I would like to see
> one contest reduce the SO2R impact by having a 10-minute rule or other
> band-change rule for single-ops. (The Field Day not-a-contest is the
> only one I can think of that does it now.) This seems like a logical
> response to changing times, like the Assisted category and power level
> classes. Does anyone else care?
>
> ...thoughts for a Friday,
>
> 73, Gary
> K9AY
>
> --
> SECC on the Web: http://secc.contesting.com/
> Submissions: secc@contesting.com
> Administrative requests: secc-REQUEST@contesting.com
> Problems: owner-secc@contesting.com
--===========================_ _= 1271057(13515)984162936--
--------------1242120736093B7AFA3006AA--
--
SECC on the Web: http://secc.contesting.com/
Submissions: secc@contesting.com
Administrative requests: secc-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-secc@contesting.com
|