[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] Dreaming

To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Dreaming
From: kr2q@optonline.net
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2006 20:29:20 +0000 (GMT)
List-post: <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
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

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>