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 available QSOs and
multipliers, but I don't think we are realistically aiming for some big
worldwide victory from our locations, right?
The crux of the matter is an exception that was created once upon a time for
apparently another purpose, but in the here and now it is rigging the game
at the top in favor of a small subset (z7/z8). The basic 1/3 point rule as
such is for sure not fair to all, but you can't maintain narrow exceptions
for just a select group either. This is what my argument focused on.
As I see it, life with a 1/3-point rule without any exceptions is really
simple:
"I want to be #1 WW and I live in NA" => go to zone 9
"I want to be #1 WW and I live in EU" => go to zone 33
"I want to be #1 NA and I live in NA" => go to zone 8
"I want to be #1 EU and I live in EU" => go to zone 14
73
Kim
P.S. Where is that bridge you mentioned? :)
-----Original Message-----
From: Kelly Taylor [mailto:ve4xt@mymts.net]
Sent: 28. marraskuuta 2013 17:41
To: Kim Östman; cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Towards a critical examination of the 2-point rule
in CQWW
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 around a VE4 and an OH6.
Whose circle encompasses more countries?
I think the situation in VE4 may be worse than in OH6, actually. The last
time I looked at a map overlay of the Black Hole, it actually extends
further south in NA than in EU. From here, relative to, say, the East Coast,
the number of EU stations we can work on 80 might be countable on one hand,
even those with the best 80 meter antennas in Manitoba.
DX on 160? Bwahahahahhahaha! We wish!
40 is a little better, but where an EU station could probably get quite the
rate going on 40, working other countries at a very fast clip, the vast,
vast majority of stations we work will be NA. The Caribbean stations aren't
always a lock for us, either.
As to Kim's point about stations in the south of Spain moving to N. Africa
to get 3pt QSOs, give me a break!.
That means crossing one bridge by car!
If a guy can win ARRL DX by going to HP with a vertical on the beach,
imagine how much fun you could have in WW with a vertical on a beach in
Morocco! For an outlay of, perhaps, a tank of gas.
Try getting from mainland NA to 3pt territory for 101 euros! (Based on the
prices I saw in southern France (1.69 e per litre filling a 60 litre tank.)
I can pretty much guarantee Bruce spent WAY, WAY more than 101 euros getting
to HP.
In Europe, in half the time it takes to fly from Winnipeg to Toronto, you
can fly across five or even six countries, depending on flight path. In
Europe, in about the time it takes to fly from Montreal to Vancouver, you
can be in one of three different continents. (It's about the same flight
time from LHR to Halifax as from Montreal to Vancouver.)
Going forward, especially if we are heading into another Maunder Minimum as
some forecasters project, I don't see much excuse for removing the 2pt NA
rule.
73, kelly
ve4xt
On 11/28/13 7:20 AM, "Kim Östman" <kim.ostman@tut.fi> wrote:
> 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 country, when it's 1 point
> for everybody else in the world. I also brought up this question in March
in
> conjunction with the CQWW survey. At the time, a kind veteran US contester
> answered me privately, explaining that the rule was created decades ago
when
> there was a need to encourage activity especially from zone 8 (the
northern
> Caribbean). The world was a different place back then.
>
> To bring some analytical structure to the discussion, let's examine what I
> see as the most common arguments for maintaining the status quo:
>
> 1. "The rule evens out the imbalance between the number of available NA
and
> EU countries" = multipliers. ===> The numbers show that there are 73 EU
> multipliers and 50 NA multipliers. Being in zone 7/zone 8 (from here on:
> z7/z8) on the doorstep of SA brings in 32 additional SA multipliers, and
as
> the map shows, many are in very close proximity. So that's 73 (EU) vs. 50
+
> 32 = 82 (NA & SA): the numbers don't support this argument.
>
> 2. "You can't log the existing multipliers due to lower activity level in
> the NA/SA vs. EU countries." ===> That's already retreating from and
> shifting the original argument. You need one single station for the
> multiplier, and if you're in a rare zone/country and have put in an effort
> to have a good signal, chances are they will find you without you even
> having to hunt them down. This year in CQWW CW, I worked 55 different EU
> multipliers vs. 40 different NA/SA multipliers, from up here in the
> propagationally challenged Aurora Belt where NA/SA is actually challenging
> to reach. In the 2012 CQWW CW, one of the top z8 stations worked 57 EU vs.
> 40 NA/SA multipliers. A log analysis covering multiple years will provide
a
> more reliable view.
>
> 3. "There are less stations available for QSO points." ===> First, EU has
a
> virtually endless supply of other 1-point EU stations. But likewise, z7/z8
> have an endless supply of US stations to work. Second, the EU <-> NA
3-point
> DX highway is open for z7/z8, and good antenna systems result in good
> signals even down to 80m or 160m. Likewise, the EU guys with good systems
> get a nice number of NA contacts even on the low bands. Of course z7/z8
are
> further away from EU than z5 is and the openings are shorter. But then
> again, z15/z16 are also further away from NA than z14 is. We accept the
> reality, work as many NA/SA as we can and then attempt to make up for it
in
> other ways. It's all about strategy!
>
> 4. "z7/z8 NA stations are disadvantaged relative to the z9 SA stations,
> which are *just a few hundred kilometers away*." ===> So what about
southern
> Europe and the hot-bed AF z33 in close proximity? Are the serious
contesters
> in southern Spain asking for rules exceptions in the form of 2-point (or
> even 3-point) EU QSOs, because close-by 3V and CN get 3? No. If their
> concern is to win the world, they simply travel to places such as z33.
>
> An interesting further point emerges when looking at the 2013 CQWW survey
> results
> (http://www.cqww.com/files/2013_CQWWDX_Contest_Survey_27Apr2013.pdf),
> questions #9 and #10. The former was about increasing the intra-NA points
> for "z1-z5 <-> z6-z8" QSOs from 2 to 3, and the latter was about
increasing
> "JA <-> rest of Asia" points from 1 to 3.
>
> Funnily enough, a higher number of respondents (31.9%) thought that NA
QSOs
> should be valued 3 points than that Asians hams should be rewarded with 3
> points (27.7%). Even more interesting is that a greater number (32.9%)
> thought that Asians should NOT be rewarded than that NA QSOs should NOT be
3
> points (26.2%)! There were 2.5% less people with "no opinion" in the Asian
> question (NA: 41.9%, AS: 39.4%).
>
> ==> In light of all the above, is the 2-point (or proposed 3-point)
> exception really about creating a level playing field? For a global group
of
> participants, in a global contest?
>
> Finally, a personal example, not to toot my own horn (I have as many flaws
> as the next guy) but to illustrate the point. Last year I was trusted with
> the wonderful opportunity to operate CQWW CW as SOAB HP from a southern
> European superstation. It was tons of fun for this frozen OH guy and quite
> the learning experience.
>
> But I was in 1-point EU; had I been just a few hundred kilometers south
and
> worked the exact same people, I would have won the whole damn thing. Such
a
> comparison is of course too simplistic, but it makes the point, and
relates
> directly to the z7/z8 vs. z9 argument about such a small distance placing
> one in a 1-point (or, well, 2...!) area vs. a 3-point area. Did I start
> requesting beneficial exceptions for my location so as to "correct" the
> perceived injustice? Of course not. I accept the fundamental continental
> divide, no matter the relative disadvantage for me in the fight for the
top
> spot.
>
> Summa summarum, I think the above analysis shows that serious
> reconsideration is needed for an exception that was created for a reason
> that no longer exists. We are all equal, but this is making some "more
equal
> than others," as one author famously coined. Perhaps distance scoring
> schemes could help, but I suspect the devil would again emerge in the
> details.
>
> I may be a naïve idealist, but I'd like to think that we are an
> international contesting community, one that continuously seeks for better
> ways of understanding, acknowledging, and encouraging each other in
positive
> ways. In the long term, exceptions that privilege given subsets are highly
> counter-productive to this higher purpose. What do you think?
>
> Sincerely,
>
> 73
> Kim OH6KZP
>
> 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 agree :) But actually, the
> guys really getting screwed over are in Oceania, and they get hardly any
> consideration. In my opinion it's a testament to their dedication that
they
> bother participating at all. If anything, most of them should get at least
5
> points for all contacts...
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|