[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] DREAMING

To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] DREAMING
From: Alan Leith <aleith@syd.eastlink.ca>
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 20:54:59 -0300
List-post: <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
Now this is pretty reasonable and simple.  Simple is good.  Works for me.



At 01:04 PM 10/21/2006, you wrote:

>Following N4ZR's admonition, I'll re-label this notion as DREAMING.
>A scoring system for CQ WW DX contests that I  think could really 
>work is idealistically simple:
>QSO's in YOUR country       1 point
>QSO's EVERYWHERE else    3 points
>Encourages activity:  (this would be good)
>Removes flagrant biases tied to continental boundaries
>No longer penalizes Asians who must work someone thousands of 
>kilometers distant for one point (maybe encourages our JA friends to 
>participate again?)
>Eliminates unfair advantages that Zone 33, 35, 36, 09, 10 have today
>Maybe encourages more expeditions to rarely-on Caribbean and Central 
>American countries?
>Meanwhile, I'll look for you all from Hawaii KH7Q
>  (or is that KH7 Qure??)  on 20 meters next weekend.
>Sometimes there's maybe more about contests than points?  I'll 
>contemplate that while making the drive along Oahu's beautiful north shore.
>Vy  73
>Jim Neiger   N6TJ
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: Jimk8mr@aol.com
>   To: n6tj@sbcglobal.net ; CQ-Contest@contesting.com
>   Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2006 7:56 AM
>   Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Real Time Scoreboards
>   In a message dated 10/20/2006 8:09:10 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, 
> n6tj@sbcglobal.net writes:
>     Why not REALLY improve the contest by seriously considering 
> remedying the
>     ancient, unfair, archaic "points per QSO vs. your continent" nonsense.
>   There are some things in the world, like the USA Electoral 
> College and the CQWW 1-2-3  point system, that would never be 
> designed into a new system, but with which we seem to be stuck 
> forever.  So it appears voters in Wyoming and Delaware and 
> contesters in Zone 9 and Zone 33 will continue to be more equal 
> than the rest of us.
>   Unlike elections, however, in ham radio contests there need not 
> be only one winner.  There can be multiple winners based on 
> multiple sets of rules. Just take the raw material of what a person 
> worked (from a Cabrillo log) , and score it in several ways.
>   Obviously, it would still be scored in the "CQWW Classic" mode, 
> using today's rules.
>   From there use one's imagination.  My suggestion is a scoring 
> system where points are based on zone to zone distances. The point 
> values would not need not be integers, so 1.6 or 2.226 points for a 
> qso would be possible and normal.  For example, something like
>   QSO Points = 1 + (Distance/10000)
>   where Distance is the zone center to zone center distance in kilometers.
>   So qso points would vary from 1 (your own zone) to about 3 (at 
> the antipodes). Score it up with the current multiplier structure, 
> and you have the results of the "CQWW 21st Century" competition.
>   Having done the work of preparing logs for processing, dupe/bust 
> checking, etc., there would be very little extra work to produce an 
> alternate set of scores, with results published online.
>   Watsa OMs?
>   73  -  Jim   K8MR
>CQ-Contest mailing list
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>Version: 7.1.408 / Virus Database: 268.13.9/490 - Release Date: 10/20/2006

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.408 / Virus Database: 268.13.9/490 - Release Date: 10/20/2006

CQ-Contest mailing list

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