[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] The two/four-point rule in WPX

To: Richard F DiDonna NN3W <richnn3w@verizon.net>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] The two/four-point rule in WPX
From: "Martin , LU5DX" <lu5dx@lucg.com.ar>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2014 11:36:27 -0300
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
Thing is. If we pretend to call contests competitions the scoring system
should be aimed at providing a level and fair playing field.
So, to me it is really a wast of time to talk about scoring system, where a
whole lot of other topics remain unresolved to guarantee that.

So my question is, given the fact that there are really bigger probles than
the 2-point NA exception, why are we talking about this? Is that at the top
of the list of issues which resolution will make contesting better?

Making every QSO count 3 points will only force 10-15 KW stations to
re-design their infrastructure to be able to run 100 Kw. That is not an
easy task guys!

If no distance discrimination is applied to the scoring system, Tono would
have to take down his high directivity high gain super array and turn it
into a super high gain omni-directional system (not an easy task either)

Well, eventually it could be good for the industry a few stations will have
to invest a couple more millions dollars to keep rulling the game.


Martin, LU5DX

PS: Go NA Sprints!!!!!!!!!!! (the only real ham radio operating skills
PPS: Go Stew Perry!!!!!!! where the main factor in DX (distance) really

On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 10:38 AM, Richard F DiDonna NN3W <
richnn3w@verizon.net> wrote:

> Unfair would be the fact that I can work a station 2300 miles away in
> California and I don't receive a single point for that QSO. You, on the
> other hand, can work about a dozen different countries with 500 miles of
> Helsinki. If you're in Germany, that number increases to about 40 countries.
> So, please consider the uproar as to who benefits over whom with respect
> to geography.
> 73 Rich NN3W
> On 4/10/2014 8:02 AM, Kim Östman wrote:
>> Hi John,
>> Removing the exception simply brings the NA Caribbean stations to
>> everybody
>> else's level and rules.
>> If such playing under equal rules is seen as "unfair," then the problem
>> lies
>> with the basic scoring system, and you can't fix that with this kind of
>> exception for just a privileged few.
>> Again, there are two very distinct and separate things at play here:
>> 1) The basic continental-divide scoring system
>> 2) The 2/4-point NA exception to it
>> Most agree that the first one is fundamentally flawed. But it is so
>> entrenched that I'm afraid we will not see it changed before our hobby
>> dies
>> out.
>> Thus I'm focusing only on the second one. We can't put band-aid on the big
>> problem by maintaining a parochial exception that makes it even more
>> "unfair" for everybody else. Numerous examples can be shown of how this
>> has
>> distorted contest results (beyond the basic system) and reversed final
>> placements.
>> In an event that purports to be a competition and to be worldwide, I think
>> this piece of basic logic should be patently obvious. I'm happy to say
>> that
>> private communications around this thread are acknowledging this fact,
>> even
>> from among the beneficiaries.
>> I'm still hoping to hear official answers to the two questions posed
>> previously.
>> 73
>> Kim OH6KZP
> _______________________________________________
> 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>