Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+Towards\s+a\s+critical\s+examination\s+of\s+the\s+2\-point\s+rule\s+in\s+CQWW\s*$/: 13 ]

Total 13 documents matching your query.

1. [CQ-Contest] Towards a critical examination of the 2-point rule in CQWW (score: 1)
Author: Kim Östman <kim.ostman@tut.fi>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 15:20:30 +0200
Dear all, Bob's N6BK / HS0ZIA e-mail to the reflector triggered some (long...) thoughts in my head. He wondered why North American (NA) stations in CQWW get 2 points for each NA QSO outside their own
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2013-11/msg00389.html (13,130 bytes)

2. Re: [CQ-Contest] Towards a critical examination of the 2-point rule in CQWW (score: 1)
Author: "Martin , LU5DX" <lu5dx@lucg.com.ar>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 13:37:34 -0200
"...P.S. Up here in the barren lands of the EU Aurora Belt, we should get 4 points for all DX QSOs that we manage to squeeze through. I'm sure that our fate-sharing friends in Alaska and Nunavut will
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2013-11/msg00392.html (17,694 bytes)

3. Re: [CQ-Contest] Towards a critical examination of the 2-point rule in CQWW (score: 1)
Author: W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu@w0mu.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 08:37:59 -0700
I stopped reading this when you lumped NA and SA to make up for the number of EU countries. EU is nearly 4 million sq miles while NA alone is nearly 10 million Sq miles. What happens to the multiplie
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2013-11/msg00393.html (15,395 bytes)

4. Re: [CQ-Contest] Towards a critical examination of the 2-point rule in CQWW (score: 1)
Author: Kelly Taylor <ve4xt@mymts.net>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 09:41:00 -0600
My perspective may be different than other NA ops, but here's why I think the 2pt credit should remain: Kim's multiplier argument is mooted by one simple fact: draw a decent circle of propagation aro
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2013-11/msg00394.html (18,097 bytes)

5. Re: [CQ-Contest] Towards a critical examination of the 2-point rule in CQWW (score: 1)
Author: Kim Östman <kim.ostman@tut.fi>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 18:10:33 +0200
Kelly, I think we all agree that the continental divides and the 1/3-point rule make it impossible for just anybody from anywhere to win. VE4 is probably even more disadvantaged than OH6 in terms of
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2013-11/msg00396.html (19,408 bytes)

6. Re: [CQ-Contest] Towards a critical examination of the 2-point rule in CQWW (score: 1)
Author: "Leigh S. Jones" <KR6X@KR6X.COM>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 08:17:03 -0800
I disagree with the assertion that the two point rule was created from a flat playing field merely to encourage activity in the Caribbean. Having been following the news around that time, I can say t
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2013-11/msg00399.html (8,791 bytes)

7. Re: [CQ-Contest] Towards a critical examination of the 2-point rule in CQWW (score: 1)
Author: Kim Östman <kim.ostman@tut.fi>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 19:08:44 +0200
Dear Mike, I agree that leaving out AF was quite an oversight on my part, thanks for bringing it up. To see whether this really changes the situation I again looked at the numbers. There are 77 AF co
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2013-11/msg00401.html (9,994 bytes)

8. Re: [CQ-Contest] Towards a critical examination of the 2-point rule in CQWW (score: 1)
Author: "Rex Maner" <k7qq@netzero.net>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 13:37:59 -0500
Kim With all this noise about QTH and low scores, the only solution is to Leave. Just remember that from wwa the scoring isn't much better. Maybe I should pack my bags for contest season. HA HA Happy
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2013-11/msg00404.html (21,378 bytes)

9. Re: [CQ-Contest] Towards a critical examination of the 2-point rule in CQWW (score: 1)
Author: Richard F DiDonna NN3W <richnn3w@verizon.net>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 14:37:56 -0500
So how about awarding one point for intra country QSOs involving a different zone. 73 Rich NN3W What happens to the multipliers when you lump in Africa with EU, which to me is the same as lumping in
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2013-11/msg00410.html (9,456 bytes)

10. Re: [CQ-Contest] Towards a critical examination of the 2-point rule in CQWW (score: 1)
Author: Mark <markzl3ab@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 10:28:54 +1300
our they 5 Bermuda to New York 1200km = 2pts Christchurch New Zealand to Sydney Australia 2200km = 1pt Bermuda to Los Angeles 4900km = 2pts Christchurch to Hawaii 7600km = 1pt. and that is putting t
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2013-11/msg00412.html (8,328 bytes)

11. Re: [CQ-Contest] Towards a critical examination of the 2-point rule in CQWW (score: 1)
Author: Jimk8mr@aol.com
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 21:18:55 -0500 (EST)
No tinkering with a 1-2-3 point system will yield a fair result for all, whether for zone 14 vs 33, 8 vs 9, or east Asia/Oceania vs the rest of the world. There is no reason in the 21st century to us
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2013-11/msg00421.html (14,817 bytes)

12. Re: [CQ-Contest] Towards a critical examination of the 2-point rule in CQWW (score: 1)
Author: Maarten van Rossum <pd2r.maarten@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 11:53:49 +0100
-- 73, Maarten PD2R _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing list CQ-Contest@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2013-11/msg00433.html (7,574 bytes)

13. Re: [CQ-Contest] Towards a critical examination of the 2-point rule in CQWW (score: 1)
Author: Kim Östman <kim.ostman@tut.fi>
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 18:15:45 +0200
Gents, Taking into account the added analysis (thanks for the prompting critique, Mike W0MU) about the negligible effect of AF, is somebody on the reflector actually able to rebut in point-by-point f
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2013-11/msg00454.html (11,171 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu