Good points, all, and I certainly didn't intend to support the idea of
messing up existing contests.
For a new contest, however, I think it's something to consider, all of your
points notwithstanding. DX is short for distance and what's easy for you is
next to impossible for us. From here, the likelihood of putting any Europe
or Asian contacts in the log on 80 or 160 is very, very small. (They can
hear us sometimes, I'm told, but we can't hear them.) It would be nice to
get at least 'some' credit for those few stations we can work from here.
A VE4 is never going to win a DX contest unless there's a /J7 or /EA9 after
his call, no matter what the scoring system is. So making it easier for us
to win certainly isn't part of my thinking. Making it easier to have at
least a bit more fun is. Making it more compelling for us to get on and give
you contacts is.
For you, when it's time to switch to 80, reaching for the bandswitch is an
easy choice. For us, reaching for the OFF button is often just as
----- Original Message -----
From: "W2RU - Bud Hippisley" <W2RU@frontiernet.net>
Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2006 10:17 PM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Distanced-Based Contest Concept
> Kelly Taylor wrote:
> >I like the idea of distance-based scoring (why do two stations who can
> >each other across the Strait of Gibralter get to count their Q at, what,
> >four times the amount that a station in Nfld can claim for working
> Kelly, I don't disagree with the grumbles about the different values
> given QSO points on/in different continents. But distance-based scoring
> strikes me as MF- or VHF-oriented thinking. By contrast, when 10 meters
> is open it's a lot easier for me to work Europe than FP8. You're kinda
> ignoring skip zones and other HF propagation details. Living in the
> northeastern USA as I do, perhaps I should lobby for extra points when
> working stations whose short-path direction from me is through the
> auroral zone. Why is distance, per se, the *only* measure of
> difficulty? Answer: It isn't. So let's not dwell on it.
> A superlative station / operator combo will work more multipliers than
> most (by having a big enough signal and good enough receiver to pick up
> close-in weak signals on 10 meters, for instance) while making more QSOs
> than most. To do that involves an ability to work nearby stuff,
> far-away stuff, side-scatter stuff, etc., etc. I don't see any reason
> to mess with that, or to single out the "far-away stuff" as more
> deserving of additonal points than any other facet of propagation.
> Call me old-fashioned but, having suffered through domestic CD Parties
> during a time when west coasters got 9 points per QSO to the 5 points
> per QSO for everyone else long after that differential had outlived its
> intended purpose, I don't see why a QSO isn't just a QSO, and the
> multiplier is countries or states or sections or grid squares or
> whatever a specific contest sponsor chooses. I would modify this only
> to the extent that in a "DX" contest perhaps contacts with your own
> country should have little or no QSO point value.
> The world wasn't created with the intent of making life "fair" for
> contesters. We can always move to, or visit, a place where we feel we
> have an advantage, if it's a big enough priority for us. I've found I
> do much better in CQ WW if I get in it for the sheer fun of making QSOs,
> rather than trying to "win" it from my QTH. And if I can't work
> anybody Friday night, I know I'll be able to when ARRL DX comes around
> in a few months.
> Bud, W2RU
> CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest mailing list