Comments from several people indicate that I wasn't very clear in my
wording earlier.
I was suggesting a simple 24-out-of-48 definition of contest period, where
you could work longer but only the first 24 hours would count. I.E., like
ARRL SS and others.
Actually, I was trying, but poorly, to convey just a part of a somewhat
larger idea -- namely that "hours" be counted based on operator-hours
rather than just passage of time. The period (e.g.,24 hours) could be any
combination of operating sessions, i.e., operator-hours, (conforming to
rules about minimum off-time) up until the maximum of 24.
For SO, station-hours and operating-hours are identical. The "larger" part
of that idea was to extend the notion beyond just SO operation, by allowing
the notion of Teams. A Team could consist of any number of operators,
working any number of hours spread across the total contest period. Their
individual scores would be added to get a Team score. The addition would
be to extend the SO 24-hour competition by defining a similar "Team"
category of hour-limited teams. E.G., there could be a 24-hour Team
competition, similar to a 24-hour SO competition. However, a Team could be
composed in a variety of ways - e.g., 2 ops working 12 hours, 1 working 12
and 2 working 6, etc., as long as the total of Operating Hours for the Team
didn't exceed the max. Teams might all work from the same station (i.e.,
like a Multi), or work from their own individual stations. Whatever works
for them.
This would provide a way for SOs who, for whatever reason, can't commit a
full 24 hour period to still compete, by joining a Team. But it would not
require creating lots of categories, e.g., 4-hour, 8-hour, 12-hour,
18-hour, etc. Teams of course compete against each other.
Anyway, whatever Pete et al might put together I think it will be
interesting and novel.....
73,
/Jack de K3FIV
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Jack Haverty. <k3fiv@arrl.net> wrote:
> Pete,
>
> I can't see any reason *not* to do this. Great idea. Anyone who wants
> to compete is always looking for "others like me" to compare scores, so the
> CWC provides an easy way to create such a venue for any "category" where
> there's enough interest, without any need for any Contest Committee to do
> anything at all. The 24-hour group is a fine place to try it out. With
> computers today, it's straightforward to have as many CWCs as we like -
> yes, the time has come.
>
> I'd make the 24h rules as simple as possible - just a 24-hour period,
> defined by your log as submitted. No constraints on pattern of operation.
> If you work more than 24 hours, simply delete the Qs outside your chosen
> 24h period before sending your log. Anyone who doesn't like the idea just
> doesn't need to submit a log.
>
> An interesting experiment would be to encourage people to only submit
> their log as an entrant to a contest in which they are actually trying to
> compete. E.G., if you're just casually participating, for whatever reason,
> submit your log as a Checklog, to indicate that you're not trying to win
> anything. That would likely produce some actual data on popularity and a
> count of the real competitors.
>
> Just curious...what were the reasons that the Contest Committee offered as
> they shot down the 2003 proposal?
>
> 73,
> /Jack de K3FIV
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 4:44 AM, Pete Smith N4ZR <n4zr@contesting.com>wrote:
>
>> Ten years ago, VE5ZX, N2MG and I made a modest proposal - and were
>> summarily shot down by the CQWW Contest Committee. What follows was
>> written then, so there are a few anachronisms - for example, CQWW logs are
>> now public. But I think the basic idea remains sound, so I'm putting it
>> out for comment from the community. Is this an idea whose time has finally
>> come?
>>
>> Announcing the 24-Hour DX Contest Challenge
>>
>> Have you ever felt caught in-between -- wanting to compete seriously in a
>> contest with a 48-hour time period but unable or unwilling to go that hard,
>> that long?Do family obligations collide with your desire to be competitive
>> in a major DX contest?Do you feel, where you live, that the schedule of the
>> major DX contests forces you to be late to work on Monday morning, or to
>> start the contest well after midnight on Friday?
>>
>> Well, now there's an alternative.The first-ever 24-Hour DX Contest
>> Challenge will be held to coincide with the 2003 CQ Word Wide DX Phone and
>> CW Contests. The basic idea of the 24-Hour challenge is simple -- to
>> provide a competitive category for operators who are not able or willing to
>> operate the full 48-hour period.You choose the 24 hours out of a 48-hour
>> contest that you want to operate, and compete with operators in your own
>> country or around the world who make similar choices.Match your knowledge
>> of propagation and operating patterns with others by choosing the optimum
>> 24 hours, and may the best operator win!
>>
>> In February [2003], a survey appeared on www.contesting.com, asking
>> whether institution of a 24-hour category in DX contests would result in
>> operators increasing or decreasing their operating time, or would result in
>> no change.Almost 500 votes were cast -- 42 percent said they would operate
>> more, while only 12 percent said they would operate less; 46 percent said
>> they would not be affected.
>>
>> These survey results demonstrate that instituting a 24-Hour Challenge
>> would not hurt activity in the established contest, and would probably
>> help.Accordingly, the first test of the 24-Hour Challenge will take place
>> in conjunction with the CQWW DX Contests this fall.Plaques for the top
>> single-op unassisted station in each mode will be awarded, at a minimum,
>> and we are looking for sponsors for additional plaques.Certificates for top
>> scorers by country will also be awarded.We are shamelessly copying the Stew
>> Perry Top Band Distance Challenge, in offering to award a plaque for any
>> category that someone is willing to sponsor.Contact N4ZR if you would like
>> to sponsor a plaque for a particular locality or category.
>>
>> To qualify for the 24-hour Challenge, your log must contain no more than
>> 24 hours total operating time, comprising no more than 6 operating periods,
>> with each off-time being no less than 30 minutes.Entry is simple -- once
>> your Cabrillo-format log has been accepted by the CQWW Contest Committee,
>> just send us the same log file.We will process the log to make sure it
>> meets the time criteria, and publish a list of qualifying logs received on
>> a dedicated web site that will be established for that purpose.Actual log
>> content will be maintained in confidence.When CQ publishes the scores, we
>> will post plaque winners and all standings on the web site, based on CQ's
>> final scores.We will also publish our own write-up of the results of the
>> 24-Hour Challenge, hopefully capturing all the excitement of this
>> first-ever event.
>>
>> Further details, including the establishment of a web page dedicated to
>> the 24-Hour challenge and any specific rule provisions that are developed
>> between now and the 2003 [sic] CQWW contests will be the subjects of later
>> announcements.Stay tuned!"
>>
>>
>> What think, folks?
>>
>> 73, Pete N4ZR
>> Check out the Reverse Beacon Network at
>> http://reversebeacon.net,
>> blog at reversebeacon.blogspot.com.
>> For spots, please go to your favorite
>> ARC V6 or VE7CC DX cluster node.
>>
>> On 4/1/2013 9:02 PM, Ward Silver wrote:
>>
>>> By publishing the number of hours worked with the score, using whatever
>>> time-on calculation the log-checkers feel is appropriate for that contest,
>>> it would be straightforward for an interested third-party to calculate
>>> score/hr statistics.
>>>
>>> Public, validated logs could also be parsed for all sorts of
>>> time-related stats:
>>> - best first 24 hour score
>>> - best second 24 hour score
>>> - best N hour score
>>> - fastest to N points
>>> and so on. It would be the equivalent of baseball's sabermetrics - what
>>> is the analog of "slugging percentage"?
>>>
>>> If the data was there and someone cared about the calculation, it would
>>> probably be performed. We might find an interesting way to compete that
>>> doesn't require a new formal category. Or we might decide that what we
>>> already have is good enough and that more categories don't really change
>>> things. Nevertheless, the impact on the contest sponsors, who have very
>>> limited resources, would be minimal.
>>>
>>> 73, Ward N0AX
>>>
>>> ______________________________**_________________
>>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>>> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
>>> http://lists.contesting.com/**mailman/listinfo/cq-contest<http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest>
>>>
>>>
>> ______________________________**_________________
>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/**mailman/listinfo/cq-contest<http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest>
>>
>
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|