Jim:My own thoughts....Maybe you thought this element of the scoring was so
obvious, that you just left it out of your simplified system explanation:?
Would you retain multipliers??? I hope so, otherwise this would just be a
qso?contest, not a DX?contest (no incentive for working lots of Z+C).Would be
fun to see how the scores might change, but I suspect that all it would do in
terms of winners is make DX?peditions?to zones near populations centers (same
continent) more competitive.? That might simply mean a redirection of "where"
the ideal DxPed?qth?would be.? In fact, it might totally discourage DxPeds?to
"rare" places if there is not real advantage (which means more Q's which means
more fun, which is why folks go there).? It is "already clear" that guys in
zone (say) zone 8 are at a point disadvantage, but plenty of folks still go
there (I must admit that I am somewhat surprised when one of them comments
about the "only 2 points" from there...didn't they read the rules first?).?
LOL.And yes, the JA's?would have more 3 point qso's, but gee whiz, just how
many non-JA, Asian qso's?are out there for JA?? Would it really change anything
for them?? If BY ever gets a reasonable proportion of hams compared to their
population, we might be seeing all winners from JA?if everything were 3 points
per Q.? That is not bad or good, just different.Just thinking out loud.? :-)?
And exercising?my left hand/fingers after the "flattening."de Doug KR2Q
CQ-Contest mailing list