Bill Turner wrote:
> ORIGINAL MESSAGE:
>
> On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 10:30:23 -0500, Michael Coslo <mjc5@psu.edu>
> wrote:
>
>
>> Trying to level the playing field is just one
>> of those things that once you start it, there is no end.
>>
>
> ------------ REPLY FOLLOWS ------------
>
> Do you think it was a bad idea to try to level the playing field by
> creating HP/LP/QRP categories? How about single vs multi-operator? Or
> assisted vs unassisted?
>
> Those were all adopted in an attempt to level the playing field, and
> they succeeded, I believe. Do you disagree?
>
> 73, Bill W6WRT
>
Somewhat, Bill.
I look at the situation depending on what happens to the scores:
In PAQSO, QRP operations automatically double the score. But those QRP
stations are only kind of competing against the other stations. We have
a separate winner of QRP, medium power and High power. I suppose that a
QRP station might win a particular county over a higher power station at
times, but it evens out mostly.
We have a philosophy of encouraging worthy modes of operation, which is
why we give CW contacts 1.5 and 2 points per contact (next year all CW
QSO's will be worth 2 points) But we're encouraging CW, not giving a
"head start" to CW Ops so to speak.
As for the other classes, they are a convenient way to group like minded
operators and allow them to compete against each other. I am comfortable
saying this because the party results by class don't always reflect what
might be expected re which class is expected to have the highest score.
- 73 de Mike N3LI -
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|