Hi Jim et al --
Zones (either CQ or IARU) are not particularly geographically compact
nor equivalent in size. A UA3A experiences vastly different propagation
than a UT5, for instance. I would suggest considering a different basis
for a multiplier; e.g., the grid field indication. Grid fields (the
"FN" part of "FN41") are pretty large.
This would also be an opportunity to move to a more meaningful
exchange; e.g., grid square + serial number.
I wonder if there is really enough interest in this to do a one-off
proof of concept contest to see if this would be fun for the
participants. That requires moving past the talk-talk stage to having a
real set of people willing to commit to "instant adjudication", etc.
But without some trials, we're just engaging in mental entertainment.
If successful, maybe an existing contest like IARU could be changed
to adopt the model.
-- Eric K3NA
on 06 Oct 22 Sun 16:22 Jim George said the following:
> My recommendation is for a new contest, based on using:
> (1) distance as a basis for the value of a contact, and also permitting a
> contact with one's own country, and,
> (2) mults being a zone rather than a DXCC entity. Using DXCCs means that
> every contest will be dominated by those who can have the best skip into
> Using a grid square and also a zone (such as the ITU zone) as the exchange
> will make copying the exchange meaningful, enable the scoring to calculate
> the "distance value," and the zones will make the mults exciting. It's time
> to get rid of the DXCC entity as a mult. The IARU uses the ITU zones, which
> is good, but it messes things up by (IMHO) having all the HQ mults, which
> is another way of making EU dominate, and it does not give credit for
> That's the proposal, and it would be interesting for some sponsoring body
> to adopt these concepts.
> Jim George N3BB
CQ-Contest mailing list