The NA two-point rule makes no sense either. Like I said, a more equitable
system would either have 1-point per QSO or use distance to the zone worked
to determine QSO points.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jan Erik Holm [mailto:sm2ekm@telia.com]
> Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2006 3:51 AM
> Cc: 'CQ-Contest@contesting. com'
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Real Time Scoreboards
>
> Don´t complain! Inside NA at least you get 2 points per QSO,
> inside all other continents each QSO only gives 1 point.
> Fair?, no not IMO. Since it´s a worldwide competition scoring
> rules should be uniform.
>
> This thing with 2 points in NA came about a long long time
> ago, the purpose was to stimulate activity in the NA
> carribean area since at that point (early 60:ties I think it
> was, think W2SKE was inventor) activity was very low.
> However that doesn´t apply anymore and we live nowdays in a
> totally different world, IMO scoring should be the same in
> all continents.
>
>
> Dick Green WC1M wrote:
> > That "ancient, unfair, archaic" rule put our 2002 CQ WW SSB
> M/S operation
> > from 8P8P in third place, even though our QSOs+mults total
> was higher than
> > any other station in our category (at one point per QSO,
> we'd have won.)
> >
> 1 point (or whatever number) per QSO for ALL QSO´s, yes I agree.
> >
> > That's because for some bizarre reason, 8P is considered
> part of NA instead
> > of SA, to which it is much closer. All our NA Qs counted
> just 2 points,
> >
> With this type of reasoning everything should just belong to
> one continent.
> >
> > while our competition from EA8 and HC8 got 3 points for
> each EU and NA QSO.
> > Where's the logic in that?
> >
> 73 Jim / SM2EKM
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|