CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] 2 point rule

To: "Jack Haverty." <k3fiv@arrl.net>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] 2 point rule
From: Bob Kupps <n6bk@yahoo.com>
Reply-to: Bob Kupps <n6bk@yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 18:45:07 -0800 (PST)
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
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 class. There are many impressive 
stations and ops in NA but unfortunately ops in the rest of the world cannot 
use the final scores as a meaningful tool to compare their efforts with their 
NA competitors. And it's far more unfortunate for the NA ops who are deprived 
of that opportunity with all but themselves.
73 Bob HS0ZIA



On Friday, November 29, 2013 9:05 AM, Jack Haverty. <k3fiv@arrl.net> wrote:
 
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 scores measured primarily radio skills.  Some QSOs are 
harder to make than others, and require more skill, so they provide more 
points.   At the end of the competition, whoever had the most points was "best" 
at doing whatever the score was measuring - which was some kind of radio skill 
depending on the particular focus of the contest.

But in this forum I've learned that scoring had other purposes.  Perhaps it was 
to encourage more rare locations to be on the air.   Or encourage more people 
to compete.  Or ...?

It strikes me that any discussion of scoring should be based on what the score 
is intended to measure.   In many of today's contests, it seems to me that some 
of the things that are now being measured don't have much to do with radio 
skills.    For example, the ability to stay awake for 48 hours is just one such 
"skill" that seems to have a dominating effect on scores.   Or the ability to 
travel to a nearby location where the points flow more freely.

Similarly, as noted recently, there are lots of QSOs which are awarded 3 points 
but seem much easier to complete than other 2 or 1 point QSOs.  

So, what exactly is the scoring system supposed to be measuring?   My personal 
preference is that it should measure radio skills, and the person with the best 
score should be considered the best at use of such skills.   But there's many 
other possibilities.

73,

/Jack de K3FIV







On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 4:22 PM, Bob Kupps <n6bk@yahoo.com> wrote:

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 point rule equally across the globe for all intra-continental Qs would seem 
>to go a long way toward reducing by half the penalty for crossing over 
>arbitrary continental boundaries (3-2 vs 3-1).
>
>Would this rule change be an affront to anyone's sense of good sportsmanship 
>and fair play?
>
>73 Bob
>_______________________________________________
>CQ-Contest mailing list
>CQ-Contest@contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>