If Columbus had listened to all the skeptics we wouldn't even have CQWW, would
we.
Allowing US stations to work other US stations, in addition to increasing the
pool of multipliers, creates additional incentives that beyond a doubt will
lead to more QSOs, higher scores, and (more importantly) more fun for hams in
disadvantaged locations. There is no speculation here.
It is true that we don't know if this change will level the field. We can
argue that now JA stations will work extra hard to work East Coast and South
stations, while the EU will similarly work harder to reach beyond the East
Coast. It is possible that scores will go up, but the winning locations will
remain the same.
More QSOs and more Mults is likely to yield more fun and enjoyment for the
participants. Isn't this the ultimate goal?
Rudy N2WQ
Sent using a tiny keyboard. Please excuse brevity, typos, or inappropriate
autocorrect.
> On Jul 22, 2016, at 8:47 PM, Ken Claerbout <k4zw@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> Rudy - I heard you the first time. You are not listening to me. Don't use
> the logs then. But until someone can show the outcome of what these
> "reasonable proposals" do to the results, there will be very little for
> people to rally around and very little support for the change. In fact, how
> do those who propose the change know it will produce the intended result?
> They don't, it's just an assumption.
>
> Ken
>
>
> On 07/22/16, Rudy Bakalov<r_bakalov@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Ken,
>
> I repeat, your statement is flat out misrepresenting the data that's in the
> logs. You can't analyze data that's not there. You can argue as much as you
> want, but if logs contain close to zero percent US stations working other US
> stations, the analysis you demand is impossible and useless.
>
> For the record, I only operate from VE3 and have no reason to object the
> current rules. However, I do believe that reasonable proposals are being
> made; I have a problem when such proposals are being pushed back with bogus
> pseudo-scientific arguments or "if it ain't broken don't fix it".
>
> Rudy N2WQ
>
> Sent using a tiny keyboard. Please excuse brevity, typos, or inappropriate
> autocorrect.
>
>
> > On Jul 22, 2016, at 8:09 PM, Ken Claerbout <k4zw@verizon.net> wrote:
> >
> > No one suggesting a change has yet to show what their proposal does to
> > scores, good and bad, using log data or whatever they choose Until that
> > happens, these discussions are mostly a waste of time, and year after year
> > as happens now, we'll have all this hand wringing and nothing will change.
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|