I was not at the contest forum, but several observations:
1.? The issue was addressed in the recent CQWW survey. Might the change
indicate that most people thought a 3 qso penalty was excessive?
2.? For operators of merely human abilities, callsign error rates are a
function of how good you are at watching SuperCheckPartial. Not purely a matter
of how well you copy stuff.
3.? I find that some of my errors are ones where I likely copied the call OK,
but typed badly. (Especially on SSB where the computer does not send out what
you type).
73?? -?? Jim?? K8MR
-----Original Message-----
From: Cqtestk4xs <Cqtestk4xs@aol.com>
To: cq-contest <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Sent: Thu, May 23, 2013 9:46 pm
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQ WW Rules Changes
This was brought up at the contest forum. It was no surprise when K5ZD
brought up the fact that the top finishing stations had very low NIL while
the ones lower in the rankings had much higher NILs. It was explained, from
what I gathered, the reduction in penalties would encourage those guys to
participate.
Bill, I am in your camp. 3 points is not that high, especially when the
exchange is as simple as it is. No need to copy the RST, and for 80% of the
stations the zone pops up for you. All you have to do is copy the call.
Duh! Dumbing down of the contest!
But, it is CQ's contest and they can run it anyway they want.
Bill K4XS
In a message dated 5/24/2013 12:39:39 A.M. Coordinated Universal Tim,
btippett@alum.mit.edu writes:
I noticed this from today' s The Daily DX:
>During the Contest forum at Dayton last weekend CQ WW DX Contest
Director K5ZD, Randy Thompson, did an interesting presentation on the
best contest in the world, the CQ World Wide. He mentioned several
changes that will take place starting this year. The busted QSO
penalty will change from the removal of three QSOs to the removal one
(sic...
probably meant to be "of") two. In addition the CQ WW Contest is working
on new DQ criteria for dirty signals (i.e. wide signals, etc.). Full
details are
expected to be announced well before the contests.
I'm surprised there's been no discussion of the busted QSO penalty change.
Was
this the decision endorsed by the full committee? IMHO this is one of the
unique features of the CQ WW that encourages logging accuracy. Changing
the penalty from 3 QSOs to 2 may seem insignificant but it potentially
violates the integrity and consistency of past records, which I feel should
not be done without careful consideration and discussion.
I applaud the move to DQ based on dirty signals. With the advent of SDR
spectrum recordings, I hope this can be enforced.
73, Bill W4ZV
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|