- Hi Guys,
Good discussion going on, and I hope it will in the end increase
contest and general Meteor Scatter activity as a whole.
Lets see , the idea of the contest is to make as many meteor scatter
contacts as possible, probably the easiest way would be to go on PJ and
look for skeds or make them ahead of time, ect. 1 contact =1 point
***Most points wins*** Is that what we want?
A contest with incentive points for Random contacts? Random contacts
are not easy that is why they should be rewarded with more points, maybe
allow for self spotting (frequency only?) on PJ anytime during contest,
no random window, ect. ( example: CQ 144.140 ) Do we want to call
this a random qso and reward it with extra points?
Nows the time for ideas, not just complaints. Lets put together any new
ideas and see what we can come up with!
- Another thought on the "random" QSO issue during contests....50% or more of all VHF/UHF ARRL contest QSO's are NOT random QSO's. Try a June, January or September contest and see what I mean.
Example: You make the first random QSO on 6M with W1XXX and he says "got any other bands?" - you then make a SCHEDULE for 2m, 432, 1296, etc.
I usually operate 6,2 & 70cm and have noted than more than 60% of my QSO's in a given contest are SCHEDULED. The percentage runs higher for stations with more bands available.
And what's wrong with this picture ? Not much I can see ....valid QSO's were still made and were entered into each station's log. The same POINTS were awarded for both the "random" and the "scheduled" QSO's.
I suspect that if the ARRL insisted on ALL QSO's to be "random", the contest participation would go down dramatically or people would "cheat" in other ways (phone calls, e-mail, QSY to 40m, etc). It would be so hard to define, legislate and enforce that people would stop turning in logs (sound familiar ?)
And so...........why should things be different in a WSJT contest ? We may have worshipped the "random" god long enough like the CW requirement for licenses and it's time for a change ??
thanks for reading this far also,