[Cwo] CW Open Rules

[Alan Maenchen]

I agree with most of the above. I thought we covered publicity pretty well,
but something didn't go right. I wonder how much the conflict with Sprint
caused some of that drop. (Sprint guys also noticed a drop). But that's not
common. I think that particular weekend onflict only happens occasionally.

The time changes MIGHT have caused reduced participation by EU and AS
stations. I sort of thought the change was only an advantage to NA stations
and disadvantage to EU.

I'm not hot on the M/S idea although I wouldn't rule it out. It complicates
things from the management point of view, and for a 4 hour event I doubt it
would be very popular.

Assisted vs non-assisted:  Again, this is only a 4 hour event and as such I
don't think assisted brings much if any advantage. We do have some data on
that although not complete. To simplify the event, I would simply stick
with the original rule which is to allow it, but track it in the results.
Unfortunately not all logs say if they are or are not using assisted. We
might modify the log submission process to ask specifically if they were or
were not assisted. Same with SO1R vs SO2R.

For awards, I don't think increasing the 100 Q requirement helps. In fact,
it may hurt if some of the top guys think it's not achievable and therefore
don't enter at all.

73, Alan  AD6E / KH6TU


On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 12:59 PM, Rob K6RB <k6rb at baymoon.com> wrote:

>   All,
>
> I guess I don’t want to make a knee jerk reaction. It would be interesting
> to see which non-US stations that participated in 2013 did not participate
> in 2014. We could even email a sample of them to get input on why they did
> not play in 2014.
>
> The Q number tracks the log numbers, so no surprise. I don’t think the
> issue with sprint was an issue because it would not have affected non-US
> participants, and that’s where we saw the major downturn.
>
> I had always hoped that JA participation would grow to where it had an
> impact, as it does in ARRL DX. But I’m not sure why it remains lackluster.
> I was buoyed by the increase in EU in 2013 but apparently it was transitory.
>
> I think we need to dig into what’s up and find out why we lost ground.
> What did we do different in 2013 than in 2014? Have all other contests
> shown some attrition, too?
>
> As for multi-op category, I’m neutral. I kind of like the SO only nature
> of CW Open. It may be that having assisted and non-assisted lumped together
> has become dissuasive to some non-assisted participants. I know, as a
> non-assisted, that I could be increasing my score significantly by using
> spotting or RBN. Perhaps assistend and non-assisted need to be separately
> awarded?
>
> We may have an opportunity with teams to increase participation, but I
> think it would require awards, not just bragging rights. There’s no
> question that team competition is what drives Sweepstakes, for example.
>
> Anyway, let’s not simply react. Let’s do some digging and make some
> informed decisions.
>
> Rob K6RB
>
>  *From:* D Faklis via Cwo <cwo at kkn.net>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 19, 2014 2:37 PM
> *To:* cwo at kkn.net
> *Subject:* [Cwo] CW Open Rules
>
>  All,
>
> A couple of questions:
>
> 1.  The current rules state the following:
>
> "Minimum of 100 QSOs (after log checking) is required to win an award."
>
> Should we require more Q's (say 200 or 300) to win a high combined score
> trophy?  Not a concern in Region 2, but it plays a role in Regions 1 and 3
> until we get more participation from those regions.
>
> 2.  Should we consider a multi-op category for 2015 and beyond?  Multi
> Multi does not seem appropriate, but Multi Single or M/2 might be fun.
> What are your thoughts?  Pitfalls?  Advantages?
>
> The 2014 CWO report is nearing completion, thanks to Alan's AD6E great
> work.  It will be posted on our website and will appear in DEC Solid Copy
>
> Sneak Peek:  95K Q's in 2013, 55K Q's in 2014;  847 logs in 2013, 495 in
> 2014....only a handful from outside US this year in big contrast to last
> year.
>
> 2015 CWO is September 5
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20141119/fc56bdbd/attachment-0001.html>