[Cwo] SO2R - again

Fri Mar 1 09:34:18 PST 2013

In the past two CWOs, I asked for volunteer disclosure of SO2R.  Yet only
one or two logs indicated that status .. so that method failed.  One could
adopt a "10 minute" rule for SO1R, but it wouldn't be totally accurate.

I asked WA7BNM if he could add a check box on the log submission web page
for SO1R vs SOxR but so far, it hasn't happened. My goal was to identify
SO2R in the results with an asterisk (or something), but not have a
separate category.  Generally, I'm not in favor of additional categories.

In the future, I'm open to ideas. I do think it would be useful to identify
those using SO2R in the results even though it isn't a separate category.
If you think such a "xx minute rule" would be useful in determining SO2R
then I'm open to adding that to the rules.  Maybe something like:

"SO2R will be identified in the results, but not as a separate category.
SO2R operation should be clearly indicated in your log SOAPBOX. All SO1R
operation will be limited to no less than 10 minutes on a particular band."

That's just off the top of my head.

73, Alan  AD6E

On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 2:11 PM, <k6rb at baymoon.com> wrote:

>  I would add the following to what John has said....
>
> If the activity level in CWT gets to a point where 150 different stations
> work the same band over an hour's time, then SO2R becomes moot. And,
> because of the nature of CWT rules, that person who grabs, say, 100 Qs on
> 40 meters, will have a score of 10,000 points.
>
> In addition to the subjective advantages of SO2R versus SO1R, there are
> advantages to location. If 160 is productive during an 0300Z session, and
> the usual players are on it, I would argue that Left Coasters are at a
> significant disadvantage on that band. So what?
>
> When I look at my score, I don't compare myself to N4AF; I compare myself
> to W6SX and N6RO (and usually come in 3rd). But, as John points out, I am
> really comparing myself to me. Can I break 100 again? Can I get more mults?
> Should I stay on 20 or 40 longer?
>
> Let's not make CWT too competitive. Save that for CW Open. Let's just have
> fun. Everyone who plays for the whole hour - regardless of whether running
> full legal into gain antennas or 100 watts into a wet noodle - makes it
> more fun for everyone else.
>
> Rob K6RB
>
>
>
>
>
> In general I agree with you. The debate of SO1R vs SO2R rages on within
> NCCC all the time. Many would like to see the major contests recategorized
> to account for the theoretical competitive advantage that SO2R stations
> have. A lot, however, has to do with the skill set involved and also actual
> times on the air.
>
>
> Comments about the CWT Scores Table:
>
>
> 1. The scores shown are not meaningful at all unless everyone operates for
> the full hour in each session. Otherwise it's an Apples to Oranges
> comparison. In my case, in the 0300Z session, I made 70 Qs but only could
> operate 40 minutes because of a pre-scheduled conference call. You wouldn't
> know that from the Scores table.
>
>
> 2. There were several SO1R stations who actually "beat" some of the SO2R
> stations -- or did they? Compare N3JT's score of 6141 vs N4ZZ's SO2R score
> of 4752 in the 1900Z session. Did they both operate for the full hour?
>
>
> 3. How about those Mults as a differentiator? Compare N3AD's score of 9604
> with speed demon N6RO's score of 9317. N3AD made 98 Qs but captured 98
> Mults. N6RO (running SO2R) made 121 Qs but only 77 Mults. And did they both
> operate for the full hour?
>
>
> 4. I'd like to think that CWT contesters are motivated by higher scorers
> to improve their own skills, because in the end we really are just
> competing against ourselves each week.
>
>
> Just my 4 cents.
>
>  73,
> John, K6MM
>
>  On Mar 1, 2013, at 4:48 AM, Peter Chamalian wrote:
>
>   Well it’s becoming very clear that SO1R and SO2R are really different
> categories much the same way that unassisted and assisted is or M/S and M/2.
>
> I offer yet another example of the CWT this past Wednesday. N4AF ran SO2R
> in all three sessions (note he only specified it in one but I congratulated
> Howie on his win and asked if he was SO2R and he said yes).
>
> You can see a preview of those results here:
>
> http://webmail.bitjanitor.net/~jhetrick/cwops/2013-02-27.html
> Now I know the continuous discussion about categorization, wires vs.
> beams, tribanders vs. monobanders, etc. and where do you draw the line. In
> this case I think we should at least consider separating SO1R and SO2R in
> CWO.
>
> Now I’m not just saying this because I’ve been beaten a number of times by
> SO2R, in fact I’ll limit my activity in CWO just to not get into that
> business but I think it unfair to the SO1R guys to have to compete against
> that level of headwind.
>
> My 2-cents.
>
> Pete, W1RM
>
>  _______________________________________________
> Cwo mailing list
> Cwo at kkn.net
> http://www.kkn.net/mailman/listinfo/cwo
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130301/69bac6dc/attachment.html 