Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+2\s+point\s+rule\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+2\s+point\s+rule\s*$/: 13 ]

Total 13 documents matching your query.

1. [CQ-Contest] 2 point rule (score: 1): Author: Bob Kupps <n6bk@yahoo.com>; Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 16:22:03 -0800 (PST); Hi and thanks for all the comments. I am persuaded by the arguments in favor of retaining the 2 point rule for NA. In fact those arguments apply to other continents as well and IMO applying the 2 po; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2013-11/msg00417.html (7,080 bytes)
2. Re: [CQ-Contest] 2 point rule (score: 1): Author: "Jack Haverty." <k3fiv@arrl.net>; Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 18:05:18 -0800; IMHO, it's necessary to understand what a scoring system is intended to measure, before you can judge whether or not it is "fair", or even if it is accomplishing that purpose. I used to think that sc; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2013-11/msg00422.html (9,413 bytes)
3. Re: [CQ-Contest] 2 point rule (score: 1): Author: "Randy Thompson K5ZD" <k5zd@charter.net>; Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 22:42:03 -0500; Attempts to introduce scoring changes for other areas of the world was included as a question topic in the 2013 CQ WW participant survey. Review the voting results and the comments in the pdf file at; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2013-11/msg00424.html (8,732 bytes)
4. Re: [CQ-Contest] 2 point rule (score: 1): Author: Bob Kupps <n6bk@yahoo.com>; Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 18:45:07 -0800 (PST); Great post Jack. I think most contesters would like to use the scores as a meaningful indicator of how their efforts and stations, in general and more or less, rank and compare with others in their c; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2013-11/msg00425.html (11,348 bytes)
5. Re: [CQ-Contest] 2 point rule (score: 1): Author: W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu@w0mu.com>; Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 21:19:32 -0700; In fact, a slim majority said that they would favor making 3 pointers from the NA zones with a large portion having no comment. I have no strong opinion either way. Mike W0MU The first level challeng; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2013-11/msg00428.html (10,051 bytes)
6. Re: [CQ-Contest] 2 point rule (score: 1): Author: Bob Kupps <n6bk@yahoo.com>; Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 20:20:34 -0800 (PST); Hi Hope my previous posts have addressed every point. Well I would really like to hear from them just how giving all stations 2 points for intra-continental Qs would assault their sense of fair play; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2013-11/msg00429.html (10,879 bytes)
7. Re: [CQ-Contest] 2 point rule (score: 1): Author: "Tonno Vahk" <tonno.vahk@gmail.com>; Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 12:19:39 +0200; Generally I have been very indifferent on the scoring as to my mind NA, AF, EU, etc are in totally different categories and who cares how the other continent is being scored. But looking at the CQWW; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2013-11/msg00432.html (11,960 bytes)
8. Re: [CQ-Contest] 2 point rule (score: 1): Author: "Tonno Vahk" <tonno.vahk@gmail.com>; Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 14:18:45 +0200; What do you mean by all scores? I did not handpick, I took all the top EU/US MM scores. You obviously cannot use all scores meaning the ones that are not competitive or comparable. And If we take the; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2013-11/msg00435.html (13,767 bytes)
9. Re: [CQ-Contest] 2 point rule (score: 1): Author: Rudy Bakalov <r_bakalov@yahoo.com>; Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 07:30:52 -0800 (PST); Randy, The survey excluded demographics data and therefore we simply don't know if it polled the right people. Ditto for the members of the CQ Contest reflectorchances are most of them have the incen; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2013-11/msg00448.html (11,637 bytes)
10. Re: [CQ-Contest] 2 point rule (score: 1): Author: Michael Adams <mda@n1en.org>; Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 16:36:18 +0000; Before the Classic overlay was announced, there had been some talk about having a side-contest running in conjunction with CQWW, to address/gauge perceived interest in competition among those of us w; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2013-11/msg00461.html (10,371 bytes)
11. Re: [CQ-Contest] 2 point rule (score: 1): Author: W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu@w0mu.com>; Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 09:41:08 -0700; Interesting point about bonus points. Online games specifically 1st shooters give bonuses for all sorts of actions in game. How about a bonus for working 10, 100,1000 F stations. A bonus for working; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2013-11/msg00462.html (12,627 bytes)
12. Re: [CQ-Contest] 2 point rule (score: 1): Author: Dave Edmonds <dave@pkministrywebs.com>; Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 12:47:01 -0500; I just worked about 100 stations during CQWW CW. I'm not a dx chaser and prefer the more US contests, but I had an "out of the box" thought about this discussion. What about having winners for each Q; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2013-11/msg00465.html (15,472 bytes)
13. Re: [CQ-Contest] 2 point rule (score: 1): Author: "Remigijus Vaiius" <r.vaicius@ando.lt>; Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2013 21:01:41 +0200; Michael, Just perfect - I'd vote for it. 73, Remi LY8O <snip> A simple example: I had been toying around with suggesting that each QSO be worth (1 if a different zone) + (1 if a different DXCC) + (1; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2013-12/msg00009.html (7,480 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 13
Page: [1]