On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 7:53 PM, Rick Dougherty NQ4I <nq4i at
contesting.com>wrote:
Hi all...there are nearly 240 + members of this club...we are located
> in the South East US and contrary to what anyone else says we DO have
> a propagation disadvantage...
>
Yes, we have a propagation disadvantage to some locations and a propagation
advantage to others. Just like everyone else.
I realize that many of you re not as serious in the ARRL DX tests as I
> am each Feb and March...but if you were serious then a distance based
> scoring system would be the only thing you would want to give you a
> chance to be competitive.
While I haven't been very active the past few years, I am starting to
operate again and have been extremely serious about the ARRL DX contest. To
the point that I have traveled to the Caribbean several times for
competitive M/S operations. I don't appreciate Rick's condescending
attitude proclaiming that *he* knows what *I* must want out of this
contest. Rick's argument is that the current scoring favors those in the NE
and the Caribbean...and he's right!
OR you could use the advantage of distance based scoring and
> be able to compete one on one with similar stations across the
> US...think about it...600 acres and state of the art or you current
> station in the SE US compared to a similar station in the NE US...to
> me its a no brainer!!
>
That assumes that an equitable distance-based scoring formula could be
developed - it could not.
> If I use a tribander and have wire antennas...I should be able to
> compare to the same type of station in Maine or Vermont...
>
Why? I feel that it is much more important to be able to compare on an
historical basis. A change of scoring rules would make that impossible.
For example, using scores normalized to 1.000, if a W1 makes a score of
1.000 and I make a score of .750, while in a prior year I made a score of
.600 I can easily see if I'm improving. If the scoring method is changed
such that, with the same number of Qs and mults I score 1.000 and the W1
scores .900, have I improved?
Now comes the real whining and complaining from me
Kind of used to that on this topic!
it is time to send him an email and
> tell him that this club is behind the distance based scoring
> system...his email address is
> W4OZK at ARRL.ORG
>
Or it is time to send him an email urging him not to change something that
doesn't need changing.
I would like each member of SECC to stand up and be counted!
>
I plan to.
> Email your feelings to Greg Sarrat today...lets make this contest a
> lot more fair than is currently is....
>
While the concept of "fairness" is fairly subjective, what would be unfair
would be to change the scoring method. It has been established for quite a
while now, and there is no evidence, other than a few people whining about
some undefined change, that a change would somehow make the contest more
fair. The contest is fair now. The same rules apply to everyone. Acting
within the published guidelines, if one wants to win the US, one would be
wise to move their station to the NE. I know it has been tried in the
past. Or go to the Caribbean to win outside the US. I, and many others
have done that.
And I'm pretty sure Rick knew what the rules were before he started building
his station. His position is reminiscent of the people who buy property
near an airport and then complain that there is noise from the aircraft!
My main objection to changing the ARRL-DX contest to a distance-based
scoring method is that it would no longer be the ARRL-DX contest. ARRL
tried to change the contest into a clone of CQ-WW in the 70s and it was a
miserable failure. The contest does not need to be changed!
As I mentioned in an earlier email, I think the concept of a contest that
uses distance-based scoring is a fine one. But start a new contest, do not
change ARRL-DX!
I invite you to join me in supporting the *status quo*.
73 de Lee
--
Lee Hiers, AA4GA
www.aa4ga.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://lists.contesting.com/pipermail/secc/attachments/20110629/d48446a9/attachment-0001.html
|