There may be merit in what you said but it sounds a bit like enacting the
IRS taxation code but for contesting.
73, Larry W6NWS
-----Original Message-----
From: Jack Haverty.
Sent: Friday, November 29, 2013 4:47 PM
To: cq contest
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Contesting "outside the box"
There's been a lot of good discussion lately about various aspects of
contesting. Scoring rules could be made more "fair". Certain operating
practices could be ruled illegal and enforced. Certain characteristics of
the game itself could be changed to better fit some entrant's lifestyles.
Life would be better, contests would be more fun. All of these are good
discussions.
In most contests, I have a lot of time to think, while waiting to finally
break through a pileup, or for someone to hear my repeated unanswered CQs
that are below the Skimmers' hearing. That comes with running 100 watts
and a dipole. That's OK. I choose to do that because I like the
challenge. I don't expect to win anything. Whoever you are, I'm probably
not your competition. I'm not trying to tweak rules to my own
advantage. But I have been thinking about how to make contesting more
fun, more challenging, and more meaningful. I thought it might be a good
time to share some thoughts. Hit delete now if you aren't interested.
While thinking about all the recent discussions, it occurred to me that
contesting may be on the cusp of a change. Improvements seem to focus now
on things that might allow you to shave a few milliseconds off of a QSO,
improving the rate ever so slightly to edge out the other guy. Send your
code, or speak that exchange, as fast as possible. Don't send your
callsign, it's just a waste of time. Train your body so you can survive a
bit longer in the chair. Offload your tasks to computers, who are much
faster than you could ever hope to be. Get as much information as you can
from the Internet, through preloaded files or realtime feeds, so you don't
have to waste time trying to copy that exchange.
It strikes me that maybe, just maybe, as a community we've optimized things
about to the limit of what is possible in current contests. There's not
much else to improve, and many of us, not all, don't particularly like
where we've ended up. We argue about a wide variety of possible changes.
We agree on none, but we sometimes make some anyway, such as the "Classic
24".
There's one change that's going to happen, regardless of what we do or what
we want. The solar cycle is going to spend the next 5 or 6 years going
down. Setting new records is going to be very very difficult. Contesting
will change whether we like it or not.
So, perhaps it's a good time to think "outside the box" about all these
issues together, and consider some broad new ideas, focused on what we
think a contest should be intended to measure. If I manage to "win", what
exactly is it that I'm best at doing? It's been difficult for me at least
to answer that question for most contests. I don't quite see what contests
are measuring.....
IMHO, radio contesting should be about radio skills, and measuring (i.e.,
scoring) how people compare in demonstrating their mastery of particular
radio skills. Some of those skills are operating skills, and others are
skills in designing and building their station. So "skills" encompasses
both operating skills and equipment capabilities.
So, how would we measure proficiency in such skills?
This is of course a very broad topic, beginning with simply identifying and
defining the particular radio skills we want to measure and use to compare
ourselves with each other.
I've found it very difficult to describe what radio skills are measured by
most current contests. In many cases, it seems, to me, that scores are
heavily influenced by non-radio factors, such as ability to stay awake for
days.
But if we set aside current rules for a minute and look at a blank slate,
maybe we could enumerate the radio skills that we'd like to measure, if
only as a way to take a fresh perspective on all the discussions.
I'll start....
There's lots of radio skills. Just as an example, I thought of one such
skill which is pretty basic and universal. In fact it's literally a law,
at least in the US. FCC rules for amateur licenses state:
"97.313 (a) An amateur station must use the minimum transmitter power
necessary to carry out the desired communications."
So, making QSOs with minimum required power is not only a primary "radio
skill", it's also the law. I'm only familiar with US rules, but I suspect
similar rules exist for other countries. Even if not, it still seems like
a good idea, just from an engineering perspective. As radio amateurs,
we're supposed to be good at that kind of stuff.
From what I've experienced in recent contests, this rule is being violated
broadly, consistently, and continuously - the "wall of RF" you see spring
up when a contest starts and the bedlam that we see in pileups.
Fortunately the FCC seems inclined not to take action. Contest judges
seem to accept the "I followed all the rules of my country" statement
that's associated with our logs. We're apparently not very proficient in
this particular radio skill.
So, if we think contests should help us measure and improve our radio
skills, how might we measure this particular radio skill - the ability to
communicate efficiently, using the minimum power necessary. Think....
think .,.. think....
OK, here's a strawman...for illustration and discussion only!
(1) Categories for separate station power levels are eliminated. You can
run whatever legal power you have the equipment to run.
(2) QSOs result in points. More points are awarded for QSOs which are
harder to make - i.e., which require better radio skills. That may be
defined by distance, rarity, band, mode, geopolitical location, or any
other characteristic which the particular contest seeks to highlight.
This is not easy, but for now I'll just assume it is solved, and we have a
way of assigning a "difficulty" to an individual QSO by awarding a certain
number of points or multipliers.
(3) The power used to perform every transmission is logged, using several
levels. E.G., the traditional QRP, LP, and HP levels. A "transmission"
is any use of the transmitter followed by a period of listening, however
long or short those "TX" and "RX" events might be. There is no inherent
limit on number of transmitters or receivers, but such a choice is up to
the station builder and contest operator.
(4) Scoring is computed by taking the number of points from successful QSOs
(valid contacts per contest rules), divided by the power used through the
entire contest period. Power used is calculated by use of number of
transmissions and power used for each individual transmission. The
measurement approximates a "watt-hour meter" measurement of the station
power consumption during the contest. Entrants are judged based on that
result, which measures "average power per average QSO" of that entrant,
i.e., it is weighted by difficulty of each QSO and power consumed.
That's it.
A few observations.....
The requirement to log power would be a change, as would the requirement to
log every transmission. When I was first licensed in 1963, that was an FCC
requirement, and we all kept logs that recorded the time of every
transmission, including unanswered CQs. My log had lots of them. That
was all done with paper logs 50 years ago, so with today's computers it
shouldn't be a big deal.
The power being used by a particular station might be derived from the logs
submitted and used to influence both station's scores. The "other side"
of a QSO might receive more points based on the difficulty of *receiving*
that transmission. A QSO with a QRP station (who sent in a log!) would be
worth more to you than a QSO with a HP station. This would provide a means
of measuring the radio skill of receiving weak signals, and encouraging
stations to try harder to work weaker signals, who might be worth more to
them.
Note that any particular station might use HP power for one contact, and
QRP power for the next. It's up to the operator to decide how to use power
most effectively. There's a lot of uninvented strategy to be developed
here.
Power efficiency is of course strongly influenced by antenna capabilities,
so every contestant should have the most effective antenna farm possible.
However, for many people that is simply impractical. So entry categories
might be made to distinguish different antenna situations. Instead of
QRP/LP/HP a contest organizer might distinguish "multiple towers or
antennas over 60 feet" versus "tribander/wires under 60 feet" versus
"stealth antennas or wire antennas under 30 feet". Such differences could
be factored into the power computation. For example, a 5-watt transmission
using a stacked array might be equivalent to a 100-watt transmission using
an attic antenna, in terms of the quantity of "power used" charged to your
log. It's one way of making "power" more like ERP than raw output from the
transceiver coax port.
There are a lot of established strategic and operational traditions that
such a scoring approach would disrupt. Some people probably hate that.
Others might like the challenge of figuring out a winning strategy on a new
playing field.
A new approach such as this need not replace the traditional mechanisms.
Contesters who are happy with the status quo could keep using it. A new
scoring mechanism could be a "contest within a contest", as long as the
basic rules for validity of QSOs and the exchange involved are unchanged.
Contest categories could be structured to meet people's lifestyles and
preferences. For example, in addition to the various lengths of time
periods, categories might be defined such as "500-QSO" or "1000-QSO", which
might be accomplished over a few hours or a few days of the contest period.
This scoring structure might coincidentally change some of the bad behavior
that people have been observing. For example, if every unanswered CQ
reduces your score, perhaps you'll decide not to leave that CQ-machine
running to hold a frequency.
Similarly, the scoring structure might encourage the development of other
radio skills. Yes, you can break a pileup by switching on the amp, but
you might get a better score by listening and timing a well-placed call.
Which is the better strategy...? Yes, you can shorten your exchange and
send it fast to save time. But if that causes a repeat request, you'll
need to make another transmission to complete the QSO and take the hit on
your score. Maybe you should send a little more slowly to get through the
first time? There's a lot of skill involved in accurately and efficiently
conveying a message over radio.
I haven't encountered any contests that try to measure the "efficiency"
skill of radio operators. Maybe this is a totally bad or stupid idea. My
intent is really just to bring up the possibility of thinking "outside the
box" to explore how contesting might be made more fun.
Just some Friday afternoon thinking....thought I'd get it down on paper
.... errr, electrons, .... before I forgot.
73,
/Jack de K3FIV
_______________________________________________
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
|