[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] Level Playing Field - my 2 cents

Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Level Playing Field - my 2 cents
From: "David J. Sourdis - HK1A" <hk1kxa@hotmail.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 04:33:55 -0500
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
Using the locators as an exchange might  be too much for some but, OTOH, would 
make exchange meaningful. The locator in the header as information for the 
contest robot is a good idea, in my opinionTo encourage the use of ALL of the 
low bands, more points per QSO should be assigned. 160 m with the higher value, 
80 m less and so on, and not just double points for 160-80-40 and less for the 
rest, because this kind of division makes that contesters use 40 m, some 80 m  
when 40 m gives them no more and then dismiss 160.

> Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2011 11:29:56 +0000
> From: kr2q@optimum.net
> To: n5ia@zia-connection.com
> CC: k5go@cox.net; cq-contest@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Level Playing Field - my 2 cents
> Milt, N5IA agreed with Stan's (K5GO) comment below.
> ----- Original Message -----
> > Something is not quite right when a part time effort in a DX contest can 
> > make top ten 
> and knock out a full time effort by as good an> operator from a better 
> station.> > 
> I had a private exchange with Stan and here is an excerpt.  For me, the last 
> sentence says
> it all.
> A main problem with "points for distance" approach is there is currently 
> nothing in place to allow for
> that.  Exchanging grid squares seems logical & everybody would quickly learn 
> their own grid square, but
> even that is probably not precise enough.  If we went to 6 digit grids, then 
> I think we'd have something...
> Not only would we have a point system more relevant in terms of being a DX 
> contest, but the exchanges
> would be meaningful.  But is there a downside to that?  Maybe.  Some say that 
> the reason the
> CQWW is so popular (with WPX right behind) is because there "isn't" an 
> exchange and everybody
> can get on and not be challenged because of an unknown exchange.
> A possible easier solution would be to require your 6 digit maidenhead grid 
> as part of the HEADER
> for each log entry.  Then folks would still have an "easy" exchange and could 
> leisurely look up their
> grid post-contest.  The downside, of course, is that nobody would know their 
> actual score until the logs
> were officially adjudicated. 
> So nothing is easy.
> de Doug KR2Q
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
CQ-Contest mailing list

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