After reading your email I thought that surely if EU stations labored under
such a disadvantage that they must rarely achieve first place world scores
in their chosen category. So I looked at the 2013 results and --
lo-and-behold -- European stations predominate in first place world
finishes! Are we talking a bout the same contest? See:
Tell me again what your complaint is, because the results indicate the EU
is the place to be for this contest if one's goal is world-high. South
America works for some categories, Caribbean and Africa third, USA dead
On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 2:04 PM, Kim Östman <email@example.com> wrote:
> To clarify, my two questions are related specifically to WPX. No need to
> rehash the CQWW discussion. Sorry!
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kim Östman [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: 6. huhtikuuta 2014 15:10
> To: 'email@example.com'; 'firstname.lastname@example.org'
> Subject: The two/four-point rule in WPX
> The so-called "2-point rule" exception for intra-NA QSOs in CQWW was
> discussed at length on the reflector in November 2013. Please see for
> and the related discussion.
> Many serious non-American operators see this exception as the contest
> sponsor giving an unfair advantage to NA Caribbean stations, particularly
> compared to EU stations. The basic continental divide point system is
> too, but exceptions that favor a select group are certainly not an
> appropriate solution.
> It was recently brought to my attention that WPX also has a similar
> exception, with 2 points for intra-NA QSOs on the high bands, 4 on the low
> Thus I would like to ask: What is the rationale for maintaining this
> exception in modern times? Why does the contest sponsor disadvantage
> European stations as compared to Caribbean stations in this manner?
> Kim OH6KZP
> CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest mailing list