The Second Law of Life:
There are no solutions; just different set of problems -- you pick the ones
you want to live with"
Tod, K0TO
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of
> jimk8mr@aol.com
> Sent: Sunday, December 06, 2009 3:48 PM
> To: david.kopacz@aspwebhosting.com; cq-contest@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Is it time to reevaluate CQWW Scoring Rules?
>
>
> Now that contest results are scored by one computer and one
> program, the sponsors', there is no good reason a contest
> could be scored by several different metrics.
>
> In the case of CQWW, start with "CQWW Classic". Then add one
> based on distance scoring, probably distances between zone
> centers rather than individual stations. Maybe include one
> that factors in the degree of polar path propagation. Zone 4
> to zone 30 is a lot further than zone 4 to zone 18, but a
> heck of a lot easier. There may be other systems worth doing.
>
> People would compete under any or all of the systems. Awards
> would be make for all the scoring systems. Someone could with
> in multiple categories. EF8M might win the "Classic". V47NT
> might win a distance system. An OH (from OH) might win a
> polar path factored score system.
>
> Since all scoring is done by computer, there is no reason all
> qso points have to be integers. So a contact from PJ2 to the
> USA could be scored a bit more than a qso from V47, but not
> 50% more. Maybe 10% more.
>
> Ten years ago I suggested such an idea to the CQWW committee
> shortly after I had operated CQWW CW in 1999 from 9M6AAC.
> But I quickly learned that the CQWW committee has about as
> bad a case of NIH (Not Invented Here) syndrome as exists
> anywhere in the world.
>
> 73 - Jim K8MR
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Kopacz <david.kopacz@aspwebhosting.com>
> To: cq-contest@contesting.com
> Sent: Sun, Dec 6, 2009 10:08 am
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Is it time to reevaluate CQWW Scoring Rules?
>
>
> "And if now V47NT wants to win the world he should go to a 3
> pts ountry. "
> Yes, this is a great idea! Let's simply move all the best
> operators and tations to 3 point countries. I can see it now.
> 25 station on P40, 32 station on PJ2 and 45 on EA8. This
> m]akes great ense.
> I never stated that EU stations should continue to only get
> one point or EU QSO's while Caribbean stations continue to
> get 2 points each QSO.
> sk any US station if they are frustrated getting 0 points for
> "in ountry" QSO's. I merely made a simple observation that
> V47NT out erformed EF8M and lost. How is this fair?
> This was just ONE observation. There are many more. I simply
> do not hink that one person should have an unfair advantage
> over another imply because he chooses to go to a 3 point
> location. Do you have any dea how much work it is to set up a
> station on a remote island? I can ell you just getting the
> equipment there and clearing customs was a ajor undertaking!
> Think about clearing a jungle on the side of a hill nd then
> jack hammering through volcanic rock to put up 6 towers and
> guy nchors. This is no small task.
> I could move the 6Y1V station to PJ2 P40 CT3 EA8 HC8, but how
> much fun ould that be for those people already there or for
> everyone else orking those more rare multipliers? I am quite
> certain that everyone in urope pointing their yagis to NA
> enjoys working a handful of Caribbean tations over the
> thousands of US stations on the band. Think how much un it
> would be next year if instead of logging PJ2T 6Y1V and V47NT,
> you nstead log PJ2T, PJ2V and PJ2NT.
> Think about it, how many stations do you think could operate
> from HC8 efore the multiplier is diluted? I suggest if I
> moved 6Y1V there, either HC8N nor my station HC8V would win a
> contest simply because eople wouldn't make an effort to work
> both of us. Once they worked on tation for the multiplier the
> other station would be ignored.
> Telling people to choose a 3 point location is NOT the
> answer. Making mall adjustments to the scoring in order to
> level the playing field so he same stations aren't always
> winning year after year when they are learly not making the
> most QSO's and multipliers is more appropriate.
> David ~ KY1V
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|