Re: [CQ-Contest] Flashback - Is It Time?

[Richard F DiDonna NN3W <richnn3w@verizon.net>]

Oh really?  I thought the idea of a reduced hours category was that 
folks cannot handle doing 48 hours and that 24 hours was the 
alternative.  So now, its operate up to 48 hours and turn in your best 
24?  Good to see the moving goalposts are in effect.
73 Rich NN3W


On 4/3/2013 9:28 PM, David Gilbert wrote:
> I strongly disagree.  The whole idea of a 24 hour category is to offer 
> an option for participants to match their physical ability and sleep 
> cycles to propagation and band activity.  Forcing anyone to operate 24 
> hours straight doesn't accomplish that in the least.  If we ever have 
> a 24 hour category, it makes far more sense to limit operation to a 
> maximum of 48 hours but let participants choose which 24 hours those 
> may be.  Require that all off periods be at least 30 minutes and be 
> done with it.
> Nobody gains anything by requiring that the 24 hours be contiguous, 
> and certainly not the folks who prefer to tough it out for the full 48 
> hours.
> Dave  AB7E
>
>
>
> On 4/3/2013 1:28 PM, Steve London wrote:
> > Just let the operator choose any starting time. From that point, they 
> > can operate for the next 24 hours, should they decide to be even do 
> > that much.
> > 73,
> > Steve, N2IC
> >
> > On 04/03/2013 10:32 AM, Richard F DiDonna NN3W wrote:
> > > Picking best 24 hours is pretty absurd IMHO. I'll just run the
> > > statistical analysis of one hour chunks - or even one minute chunks 
> > > - to
> > > see which gives the best QSO and point ratio. i can guarantee you that
> > > the big stations will win this one.
> > >
> > > Make it 24 hours straight and be done with it (not that I agree with 
> > > any
> > > 24 hour window at all). Of course, someone in the world is going to
> > > complain that a particular start time is prejudicial for some reason.
> > >
> > > 73 Rich NN3W
> > >
> > > On 4/3/2013 10:38 AM, Edward Sawyer wrote:
> > > > I can support this effort. Doesn't burden the sponsors yet and we 
> > > > see who
> > > > actually bellies up. I certainly hope that ALL of the vocal people on
> > > > this
> > > > reflector operated the CQ WW/ARRL DX both modes to show their
> > > > dedication and
> > > > commitment to operating and competing as much as rendering opinion.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I think that 30 min off times and 6 stages is too generous. Are we
> > > > competing or just accommodating convenience? Need to decide which 
> > > > it is.
> > > >
> > > > I think that N4OGW's suggestion of "the best 24" as long as you
> > > > operate at
> > > > least 24 will be very demoralizing for this group. The best 24 f 
> > > > the 40+
> > > > crowd is likely as good or better than the best 24 for the 24 crowd.
> > > > If you
> > > > think any of us are sleeping or eating during that 24.you really 
> > > > are not
> > > > paying attention.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ed N1UR
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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