I don't think major grid-square subdivisions are any better as a
criterion for supplementary score reporting than any other.
Think about the squares that straddle country or continent
boundaries: scores will be much higher on the Asian side than
the Euro side, for example. Grids work when they themselves are
the multipliers and point determinants. Otherwise, it's better
to stick with geopolitical boundaries that match the sponsor's
reporting and scoring criteria. Subdivision within them, i.e.
by time zone, would be nice.
73,
/Rick Tavan N6XI
tavan@tss.com
>From Walton L. Stinson" <wstinson@csn.org Mon Jan 24 17:46:19 1994
From: Walton L. Stinson" <wstinson@csn.org (Walton L. Stinson)
Subject: Competitor vs. participant
Message-ID: <Pine.3.05.9401241009.G7924-a100000@teal.csn.org>
On Mon, 24 Jan 1994 ae6y@aol.com wrote:
> I think a better way to gauge relative effort expended is simply to list
> total hours of operation, as is done in SS listings, without making it a
> separate category. That way, one can separate out the gung-ho competitors
> from the more casual, or those who had some other commitment intervene to
> prevent full operation. And you can compare your results with others who
> didn't operate full-bore. This would be far better, and easier to do, than
> making whole new categories.
> 73, Andy, AE6Y.
The CAC has just voted in favor of this. A formal recommendation will
be made to the ARRL very soon. 73, Walt, W0CP, arrl cac chairman
ps this recommendation does not necessarily preclude a 24 hour
category or any of the other changes currently under discussion.
>From Walton L. Stinson" <wstinson@csn.org Mon Jan 24 17:59:21 1994
From: Walton L. Stinson" <wstinson@csn.org (Walton L. Stinson)
Subject: NCJ editorial, etc. (fwd)
Message-ID: <Pine.3.05.9401241021.J7924-b100000@teal.csn.org>
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Ed Gilbert <eyg@hpnjlc.njd.hp.com>
To: cac@arrl.org
Subject: NCJ editorial, etc.
attn Walt, W0CP:
Hello Walt,
While I'm not crazy about the idea of having 2 classes of
competitors, there's one excellent idea in the NCJ editorial.
People who use computers for logging in contests should be
*required* to submit their logs in computer-readable form --
either a disk or email. When I read Billy Lunt's description of
how the Leaque checks contest logs, I cringed on hearing that
checkers actually manually type in whole logs so that they can be
computer verified. This is insane when the original log is
already in computer readable format. For contesters that still
use paper and pencil, this should not be required, but for
submitted logs that are obviously printed by computer, I see no
problem making this a requirement.
While I have your attention, I have a comment to make about the
low power category for ARRL-sponsored contests. I feel that the
power limit for this category should be 100W, not 150W as it
presently is (or is my memory failing again?). Almost all
commercial transceivers only output 100W, the execptions being
the 2 top of the line models in the $4000 class. An interesting
analysis done by Howie, wb2cpu, and posted to the internet
reflector last month, suggested that the expected increase in
number of qsos due to a 1dB power increase was several percent.
The difference between 100 and 150w is not trivial for contesters
competing for the top spots. The sponsors of the NAQP came to
this conclusion and have reduced their limit from 150W to 100W
this year. I suggest the league do the same.
73,
Ed Gilbert, WA2SRQ
eyg@hpnjlc.njd.hp.com
>From Joel B Levin <levin@BBN.COM> Mon Jan 24 18:35:06 1994
From: Joel B Levin <levin@BBN.COM> (Joel B Levin)
Subject: Regional Recognition (fwd)
Message-ID: <12320.759436506@bbn.com>
|> wa6otu's suggestion in ncj to create "participant/competitor"
. . .
I agree with others that this split as presented is not appropriate.
I also agree with the modified reporting suggestions (hours, top-10
by region) put forth.
|I think there is real merit in considering groupings that reflect distinctions
|between "levels" of competitor. I am NOT suggesting equalization. It seems to
|me that there are probably 3 different levels of approach to the sport. One
|level is the beginner who gets on for a few hours, plays a little, and leaves
|it at that.
. . .
|I would suggest one way to divide these various levels is by grouping
|according to time on the air in the contest. . . .
I would like to make a suggestion for splitting up entrants yet
another way that might make some sense, if creating a new category of
contestant is under consideration. It also has precedent in other
forms of competition.
I suggest establishing a "novice (beginner? newbie? maiden?)
competitor" category - note that the name is incorrect as I do NOT
wish to refer to the Novice class of operating license here. This
class would be limited to those who have not operated in more than
one contest; in other words one would be eligible to use this
category at most twice. An operator who won his or her first contest
would no longer be eligible for this category. (I might also make
anyone who has not operated in a contest in the last five years
eligible for this class.) Competitors would be restricted to low
(<150 watts) power, single-op unassisted.
Having operated in a contest includes having been an op in someone
else's single-op or multi-op station, and having operating in any
world-wide or nation-wide contest (such as one sponsored by CQ, ARRL,
NCJ, 10-10, for example, for those in W/VE) counts, not just ARRL
contests for ARRL eligibility etc. (I thinks field day counts too.)
These terms apply whether a log was submitted to the sponsors or not.
The rationale is to have beginners compete with beginners, making it
more enjoyable (and thus encouraging them to become hooked on
contesting :-)). Right now there is exactly one contest I know of
tailored for the beginner: the ARRL Novice Roundup. The ARRL does
attempt some recognition for relatively inexperienced, or at least
Novice / Tech class licensees, in the Novice/Tech certificates
awarded in Sweepstakes and 10 Meter contests (I should know, I have
three of them :-)). I think this would go farther, bringing greater
visibility of contesting to new competitors.
The limited eligibility is the key to this category. There is some
reliance on the honor system, though one's call turning up in a bunch
of earlier contest logs would certainly raise suspicions; but I don't
think compliance would be a serious problem.
>From Joel B Levin <levin@BBN.COM> Mon Jan 24 19:00:58 1994
From: Joel B Levin <levin@BBN.COM> (Joel B Levin)
Subject: Regional Recognition (fwd)[A[
Message-ID: <12383.759438058@bbn.com>
Sorry, I forgot to sign my recent opus (on a "novice contester"
category).
/JBL KD1ON
=
Internet: levin@bbn.com | USPS: BBN Systems and Technologies Division
UUCP: levin@bbn.com | Mail Stop 6/3C
Telco: (617)873-3463 | 10 Moulton Street
KD1ON (@KB4N.NH.USA.NA) | Cambridge, MA 02138
|