Pete,
I think that it's a great idea for all of us to consider ways to encourage
contest activity or make needed improvements. At the same time, we need to
be careful about how those changes would affect all of the players.
SS is pretty special the way it is right now. Especially for a lot of us
who live in the Northern Latitudes. You wouldn't believe how awful 10
meters (and frequently 15 meters) can be up here. In an SS 10 meters is
pretty much worthless. For example, in last year's CW SS I made 3% of my
QSO's on 10 meters. And that's with an efficient SAO2R setup. Strategy
comes in to play in figuring out how to find the people you're missing on 10
meters on other bands. If you can do that, then you can be somewhat
competitive. That's part of SS that makes it a great contest.
Good luck to everybody this weekend!
73 Steve K0SR
----- Original Message -----
From: "Pete Smith" <n4zr@contesting.com>
To: "Richard Zalewski" <w7zr@citlink.net>; "Cq-Contest"
<cq-contest@contesting.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 12:19 PM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Here we go again
> While we're at it, let's get serious about revising this contest to
> stimulate more activity. Make mults one per band rather than
> overall. Wouldn't the first 5-band or 6-band sweep be something? Allow
> one QSO per station per band, and eliminate the Sunday doldrums.
>
> To my mind, this would make virtually the perfect contest -- an exchange
> with content that *must* be copied, retaining potential for modest
stations
> to make lots of contacts and rack up respectable scores, and 24 hours
> on-time. Having more mults and Qs available would make the off-time
> decision into a critical strategic choice rather than deciding which 6
> hours will be the worst.
>
> In the past, suggestions of this sort were met with the complaint, "That'd
> be just another NAQP." My response is "What's wrong with that,"
> particularly if it attracts SS-plus levels of participation instead of the
> few hundred regulars who get involved in NAQPs.
>
> 73, Pete N4ZR
>
> At 07:18 PM 11/22/2004, Richard Zalewski wrote:
>
> >This is part of my post from Sweepstakes.
> >
> >When are we going to wake up and sit at
> >the table and restructure the operating classes of not only this contest
but
> >all. If we are going to have classes and not just a free for all then
SO2R
> >needs to be dealt with so that the classes have some meaning. And while
> >we are
> >at it Packet is here for the foreseeable future so deal with it also.
> >
> >Let the fun begin!!
> >
> >Dick W7ZR
> >_______________________________________________
> >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
|