[Cwo] web site FAQ

[Alan Maenchen]

The other side of that coin is you may find folks who want to be on a team
but can't because they can't do more than one session... and then not
operate at all because of that.  I don't think it's a real factor in
participation. Time will tell.

I think leaving that decision up to the team is best. Let them decide who
should be on their team based on who they think can give them the best total
score... even if that means a team member is only in one session. Obviously,
they will push their team members to do more than one session.  Also, I
think there will be teams where they have a tough time finding 10 ops. If
they can recruit one or two more to fill out their roster, even for only one
session, they may nudge folks on who would have been QRT otherwise.

I see your argument that scores might only be taken from a "multiple" result
list. Yes, that may simplify scoring a team (maybe not .. haven't set that
up yet).  However, I don't think that is enough to change my mind on this.
Let's go with this way and see how it works.

Alan



On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 2:12 PM, Rob <k6rb at baymoon.com> wrote:

>  It was a comment from me to that effect, Pete. I felt that the team score
> should be at least a two-session total. My reasoning is it would keep the
> activity level higher than if a team member felt he could be on a team and
> do just one session. Alan, I don't want to add unnecessary restrictions,
> either, but I think that the primary reason to have a team effort is to
> generate more activity, and, to me, that means two or more sessions. If we
> tell people that the team scores will be lifted from the "multiple session"
> scores list, and scores only go on that list where someone does two or more
> sessions, then it all makes sense. If you're a team member who does just one
> - you would have no score on the multiples list, and the team would get
> zippo from that member.
>
> If I am going to err between being restrictive or generating activity, I'd
> rather err on restrictive. But, you're the contest manager, so it's your
> call.
>
> Rob K6RB
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Peter Chamalian <w1rm at arrl.net>
> *To:* 'Alan Maenchen' <ad6e at arrl.net>
> *Cc:* cwo at kkn.net
> *Sent:* Saturday, June 04, 2011 1:14 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Cwo] web site FAQ
>
>  Well I must be losing it.  I thought there was some comment from you or
> Rob about that.
>
>
>
> Pete, W1RM
>
>
>
> *From:* Alan Maenchen [mailto:ad6e at arrl.net]
> *Sent:* Saturday, June 04, 2011 2:48 PM
> *To:* Peter Chamalian
> *Cc:* cwo at kkn.net
> *Subject:* Re: [Cwo] web site FAQ
>
>
>
> No, I don't see a need to be restrictive.
> Obviously the team is less competitive if a team member enters only one
> time period, but that shouldn't disallow that score.  Someone asked if a
> team is scored based on time periods.  I just want to be clear that there is
> only one team competition, and that is the sum of all three times.
>
> Alan
>
>
>
>  On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 11:33 AM, Peter Chamalian <w1rm at arrl.net> wrote:
>
> For the team score, is it correct to say you must enter at least two of the
> events to have your score count for the team total?
>
>
>
> Pete, W1RM
>
>
>
> *From:* Alan Maenchen [mailto:ad6e at arrl.net]
> *Sent:* Saturday, June 04, 2011 2:28 PM
> *To:* cwo at kkn.net
> *Subject:* [Cwo] web site FAQ
>
>
>
> I've copied and updated the FAQ section of the rules (attached).
>
> Text changes are in red FYI.
> I also changed the Cabrillo examples into Courier font to show preferred
> spacing. That was causing some questions.
>
> There was something else that needed adding to FAQ, but now I can't
> remember...
>
> 73, Alan  AD6E
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Cwo mailing list
> Cwo at kkn.net
> http://www.kkn.net/mailman/listinfo/cwo
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.kkn.net/pipermail/cwo/attachments/20110604/95ad54cd/attachment-0001.html