QSO distance seems like a good element to determine point value. I like the
grid square as "part" of the exchange but it is a mostly static value,
similar to zones or sections. I feel there should always be some variable
element that requires a non-automatic response in any contest exchange.
Perhaps the callsign of the last guy you worked. And dispense with the RS(T)
as it is meaningless.
As an example, if I worked N2BJ before I worked you, my exchange to you
would be "N7DF GN37 N2BJ".
Just a thought.
73 -- Paul VO1HE
> -----Original Message-----
> From: email@example.com
> [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of N7DF
> Sent: December 9, 2007 17:07
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: [CQ-Contest] re-newing the 10 meter contest
> I don't think anyone will argue that the 10 meter contest
> will reach its
> ultimate goal either this year or next as the sunspot
> cycles reach their lowest points since the contest was begun.
> Maybe now is the time to restart the contest as a true
> reflection of up to date technology. One way to do this is
> to change the scoring to more realistically make the goals of
> the contest meaningful.
> This could best be done by copying the scoring system of
> the Stew Perry Top Band Challenge and base scores on distance
> communicated rather than geographical location. This would
> adjust for the concentrated amateur radio populations in some
> areas and encourage operation from more remote areas.
> In the past the scoring would not have been possible due to
> the complications of determining distances but the software
> developed for the SP takes all the work out of the scoring.
> With the Grid Square as the exchange it becomes much more
> meaningful as well as giving the data for score calculations.
> Lets hear from the forum members and see what the majority
> thinks about this..
> 73 From Number 7 Desert Fox
> Remember E equals I x R is not just a good idea. It is THE LAW
> Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
> CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest mailing list