Dave,
I guess from the same place that N6TJ does...although Mr. Niger is much more
eloquent in his posting...and gets the sentiment of what I was trying to
say...only head said it more clearly (thanks Jim).
FYI...never said "you" were comparing CQ to ARRL...read closely...and building
a MEGA station does not automatically guarantee a win...which is I guess why
you are looking to change the rules...
W1MD
---- David Kopacz <david.kopacz@aspwebhosting.com> wrote:
> Martin,
>
> I am amazed. Where do you come up with this stuff?
>
> "If you focused as much effort on 'having fun' as you do on trying to
> make changes to the rules...Man, I can only imagine how much fun you'd
> be having"
>
> How many contests have I operated from 6Y1V? A dozen or more.
>
> How many complaints have I made about the scoring? One.
>
> I have plenty of fun. Having fun doesn't preclude an effort to evaluate
> and possibly change a scoring system that induces an unfair advantage
> based solely upon location rather than skill.
>
> You mention a scoring system that has worked well for many years, but
> when you really examine the scores across many years, you see the real
> picture. The same guys wining over nad over based on location, not
> necessarily skill. There are many examples of this other than the one
> that I chose. Look at the European scores. In M2 alone, there have been
> scores from Europe that have more Q's and more multipliers but are 7th
> 8th and lower in the standings simple because they must work other
> europeans and get only 1 points for these contacts.
>
> I never compared this contest with ARRL, not would I. I am not saying
> the scoring needs to be setup like ARRL or WAE, I am meerely saying it
> needs to be examined, and adjustments could be made to "level the
> playing field" so that guys like Andy, who work hard and clearly out
> perform their competitor, can win.
>
> You state " I go to V26 for ARRL because it is closer to the US than PJ2
> and P40...but it's not as close as 6Y1V...and you guys have the
> advantage...big time...on the lower bands...but we don't complain about
> it."
>
> There's nothing to complain about here. The scoring is fair. PJ2T has
> beat us. We have beat them. We beat you not because of scoring, but
> because of antennas. If you were to erect a stack of 40 meters yagis,
> install an 80 meter four square and a 160 meter full size delta loop at
> 140', you would compete with us very well.
>
> In CQWW it's a diffierent story. Look how much effort it took us to
> barely beat PJ2T. It's absurd. The gap is huge and it's that way all
> around the world, not just the Caribbean. If you can't see this, then I
> am sorry. There's really no point in further "discussions" with you.
>
> I have received dozens of emails form people that agree with me. The
> system needs adjustment. Someone has to bring it up. It might as well be
> me!
>
> By the way, nice job at NQ4I. I am always rooting for Rick and his team!
>
> David ~ KY1V
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Kopacz [mailto:david.kopacz@aspwebhosting.com]
> Sent: Sunday, December 06, 2009 8:42 PM
> To: Martin Durham
> Subject: RE: [CQ-Contest] Is it time to reevaluate CQWW Scoring Rules?
>
> Next you said...
>
> "Stop beating a dead horse...if you want to make a 'play' for revamping
> the
> rules for CQWW then use another argument"
>
> There is no other argument. Not everyone can operate from the limited 3
> point islands, nor can we put, or should we put, 10 or 15 stations on
> one of
> them.
>
> My argument wasn't about whether or not they knew the rules or
> consequences,
> my argument is much more simple.
>
> One operator outperformed the other and lost. Because of which location
> you
> say "he chose" is not a good reason to lose.
>
> The scoring system is not fair, has never been fair and needs to be
> re-evaluated. I simply used this one case as an example. There are
> dozens
> more just like it.
>
> So again, I say your statement is ludicrous. The problem IS the scoring
> system sucks!
>
> Sincerely,
>
> David Kopacz, CTO
> Rational Certified Developer, MCSE+I
>
> ASPwebhosting.com, LLC
> Microsoft Certified Partner
> 4044 Fort Campbell Blvd, #308, Hopkinsville, Kentucky 42240
> 1.888.277.9320
> U.S. & Canada
> 1.502.410.2922 International
>
> SIP: dial@freecall.aspwebhosting.com
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE:
> The information contained in this electronic transmission is PRIVILEGED
> and
> CONFIDENTIAL information intended only to be viewed by the individual,
> entity or entities named as recipient(s). You are hereby notified that
> any
> dissemination, distribution or copy of this communication is strictly
> prohibited and a violation of your service agreement. If you have
> received
> this communication in error, please notify ASPwebhosting.com, LLC
> immediately by electronic mail or by telephone and permanently delete
> this
> message from your computer.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Durham [mailto:w1md@cfl.rr.com]
> Sent: Sunday, December 06, 2009 7:22 PM
> To: David Kopacz
> Subject: RE: [CQ-Contest] Is it time to reevaluate CQWW Scoring Rules?
>
> Dave,
>
> Nowhere did I say "just because something "is""...makes it right. What I
> said was that V47NT and EF8M both understood the rules and scoring of
> the
> contest prior to going to their respective 'corners' and competing...
>
> Tell me how THAT is ludicrous...
>
> v/r
>
> Marty
> W1MD
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Kopacz [mailto:david.kopacz@aspwebhosting.com]
> Sent: Sunday, December 06, 2009 6:44 PM
> To: w1md@cfl.rr.com
> Subject: RE: [CQ-Contest] Is it time to reevaluate CQWW Scoring Rules?
>
> You argument is ludicrous.
>
> Just because something IS, doesn't make it right!
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> David Kopacz, CTO
> Rational Certified Developer, MCSE+I
>
> ASPwebhosting.com, LLC
> Microsoft Certified Partner
> 4044 Fort Campbell Blvd, #308, Hopkinsville, Kentucky 42240
> 1.888.277.9320
> U.S. & Canada
> 1.502.410.2922 International
>
> SIP: dial@freecall.aspwebhosting.com
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE:
> The information contained in this electronic transmission is PRIVILEGED
> and
> CONFIDENTIAL information intended only to be viewed by the individual,
> entity or entities named as recipient(s). You are hereby notified that
> any
> dissemination, distribution or copy of this communication is strictly
> prohibited and a violation of your service agreement. If you have
> received
> this communication in error, please notify ASPwebhosting.com, LLC
> immediately by electronic mail or by telephone and permanently delete
> this
> message from your computer.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of w1md@cfl.rr.com
> Sent: Sunday, December 06, 2009 2:40 PM
> To: cq-contest@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Is it time to reevaluate CQWW Scoring Rules?
>
> It's "fair" because BOTH parties new exactly what they were up against
> BEFORE the contest started.
>
> Stop beating a dead horse...if you want to make a 'play' for revamping
> the
> rules for CQWW then use another argument. When folks go to 2pt. land vs.
> 3pt. land they know before the contest starts that they are going to be
> disadvantaged. You knew it before you decided to invest in 6y1v...
>
> W1MD
>
>
> ---- David Kopacz <david.kopacz@aspwebhosting.com> wrote:
> > "And if now V47NT wants to win the world he should go to a 3 pts
> > country. "
> >
> > Yes, this is a great idea! Let's simply move all the best operators
> and
> > stations to 3 point countries. I can see it now.
> >
> > 25 station on P40, 32 station on PJ2 and 45 on EA8. This makes great
> > sense.
> >
> > I never stated that EU stations should continue to only get one point
> > for EU QSO's while Caribbean stations continue to get 2 points each
> QSO.
> > Ask any US station if they are frustrated getting 0 points for "in
> > country" QSO's. I merely made a simple observation that V47NT out
> > performed EF8M and lost. How is this fair?
> >
> > This was just ONE observation. There are many more. I simply do not
> > think that one person should have an unfair advantage over another
> > simply because he chooses to go to a 3 point location. Do you have any
>
> > idea how much work it is to set up a station on a remote island? I can
>
> > tell you just getting the equipment there and clearing customs was a
> > major undertaking! Think about clearing a jungle on the side of a hill
>
> > and then jack hammering through volcanic rock to put up 6 towers and
> guy
> > anchors. This is no small task.
> >
> > I could move the 6Y1V station to PJ2 P40 CT3 EA8 HC8, but how much fun
>
> > would that be for those people already there or for everyone else
> > working those more rare multipliers? I am quite certain that everyone
> in
> > Europe pointing their yagis to NA enjoys working a handful of
> Caribbean
> > stations over the thousands of US stations on the band. Think how much
>
> > fun it would be next year if instead of logging PJ2T 6Y1V and V47NT,
> you
> > instead log PJ2T, PJ2V and PJ2NT.
> >
> > Think about it, how many stations do you think could operate from HC8
> > before the multiplier is diluted? I suggest if I moved 6Y1V there,
> > neither HC8N nor my station HC8V would win a contest simply because
> > people wouldn't make an effort to work both of us. Once they worked on
>
> > station for the multiplier the other station would be ignored.
> >
> > Telling people to choose a 3 point location is NOT the answer. Making
> > small adjustments to the scoring in order to level the playing field
> so
> > the same stations aren't always winning year after year when they are
> > clearly 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|