With due respect to the parties this seems to be an extension of Nanny State
The has to be winners and there has to be loosers or there is no competition -
I can understand the issues with NQ4I that he has created a station but cant
compete - due to location -
This is frustrating - but until you have a level playing field this will always
exist - and frankly with vagaries of propagation and antenna and HASL and
equipment and operator skills it never will happen -
But in the meantime stations are improved and improved accepting the challenge
When I see the posts bagging locations like HC8 as really great - I am dismayed
as this station was truly one of the best on the globe regardless of location -
to consider the only factor was location in these cases is quite frankly an
insult to the efforts of the individual station owners -
How do you compare stations ? Some areas have learnt techniques to run high QSO
rates and to merely statistically compare station results ignores that stations
like K3LR have trained operators to operate better and that skill set can be
It is a problem - but as a DX station I enjoy the ARRL format enjoy working the
USA stations and states and know from VK we dont have to turn the beam much..
The fact that WPX and CQ ww out does the ARRL is simply that they are dx
contests where all compete - but even there are anomalies that favour North
We DX, as a group, ignore that and get on air to give out contacts and compete
against our own standards..
Good Luck with the changes - whatever the new rules are we will be on air and
competing as long as we can....unless the Nanny State decides that stations who
have a too big an advantage in distance based scoring are disqualified..
Regards to all See you on air....
--- On Thu, 30/6/11, Tom W8JI <email@example.com> wrote:
> From: Tom W8JI <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Subject: [CQ-Contest] Distance scoring
> To: email@example.com
> Received: Thursday, 30 June, 2011, 11:22 PM
> I'm amazed this thing is being pushed
> so hard without any science to back
> the opinion that a distance problem really exists or that
> it can be
> corrected or reduced by some forced change in rules.
> This has concluded in a letter writing campaign to voice
> opinions without
> any reasonable effort to think through the problem. If we
> all planned and
> investigated contest station's physical and operating
> strategy as well as
> this matter has been reasoned through before jumping to a
> solution, it would
> be impossible to build a winning station.
> Let's be honest here and look at what the goal really is.
> The goal is to
> deflate the scores of stations who always win (or inflate
> the score of those
> who cannot win), so other people have a chance with
> whatever they happen to
> be running and using for operators. Of course we all know
> that every
> operator is the best, and every station is the best no
> matter how good or
> bad they really are. :-)
> Once we roll distance into the scoring, we simply shift the
> "unfairness" to someone else.
> Instead of changing the rules, less do this thing like
> bracket racing. Let's
> handicap all stations based on location and antennas, so
> the only real
> scoring differences are operators and random unpredictable
> changes in
> conditions. After all, that is what we are really after.
> There are really only two ways to solve inequality:
> 1.) We let everyone compete on the same scoring system but
> break it into
> different districts or areas. There will be no top ten all
> USA winners.
> 2.) We handicap stations with a correction multiplier based
> entirely on
> geographical location.
> If we really want to take a page from Karl Marx, there is a
> third solution.
> We use a multiplier that corrects inequality based on
> scores from each
> station averaged over many years.
> 73 Tom
> CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest mailing list