[Cwo] SO2R - again

Fri Mar 1 10:18:51 PST 2013

I would argue in this case, too, that as participation goes up, the
rules of this contest (CWO) would make SO2R advantages dwindle. For
example, in a four hour session, if there were 600 unique calls that
traversed one band during that period, one could work a 400x400 or
better with a single radio and achieve a score 160,000. That could be
a winning score, by far, and there would be no inherent advantage for
SO2R.

SO2R provides a slight advantage when participation is relatively light
and people have to move around the bands to keep up a rate over the
session time period. Of course, in a contest where you earn mults per
band, and mults are S/P/C, a great SO2R operator will most likely beat a
great SO1R. In CWO (and CWT), if you have the activity to stay on one band
and can keep up rate for the whole time, you get no advantage with
SO2R.

Now, if someone wants to argue about using spotting or RBN, that's
another story. There, I would agree that someone using, say, RBN has an
advantage over someone flying blind even in a single-band foray.

Rob K6RB

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&rsquo;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&rsquo;m not just saying this because I&rsquo;ve
been beaten a number of times by SO2R, in fact I&rsquo;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/20130301/5d45f1c2/attachment-0001.html 