[CQ-Contest] Zero QSO points for WPX

[Milt Jensen]

Patrick writes, I respond!

----------
> From: Patrick Barkey <pbarkey at wp.bsu.edu>
> To: cq-contest at contesting.com
> Subject: [CQ-Contest] Zero QSO points for WPX
> Date: Thursday, March 27, 1997 8:25 AM
> 
> It takes great courage to enter this discussion, but let me try to raise
a
> few points:
> 
> [1]  To say that working one's own country is a "zero point" QSO in the
> WPX contest is incorrect.  One gets multiplier points if it is a new
prefix. 
> Thus these QSOs add plenty of points.      WRONG!!!!

For the 1st Q only.  Take my prefix for example;  how many N5s are there. 
4-5 K I suppose.  All the more "rare" US prefixes do not want to sit there
for the full contest making ZERO point contacts with all of the N5s and
similar common prefixes, as it does absolutley nothing for their score. 
Therefore we are told to buzz off, or just plain ignored.
 
> [2]  To say that "no contest should have zero point QSOs," as a matter of
> principle, is to say that there should be no DX contests.  By "DX
contest"
> I mean contests where one works exclusively DX.

This is not a "DX contest".  It is a prefix contest.  And the statement is
true.  There should be no zero point contacts!!!   Every contact should be
worth something.  As it is right now, that is the case.  The same is true
of the "in country" contacts in the Zone contests.  I went to the trouble
to operate portable in Zone 3, 160 meters only, last October.  90 % of my
contacts were with Zone 4 & 5 stations who desperately needed a Zone 3
contact and which gave me ZERO points after the 1st contact with each zone.
 I existed only to enhance their score with absolutely nothing for my
score.  But I never refused a single call.

> This is a matter of opinion, but I think that "DX contests," as a genre,
are
> a firmly established tradition of ham radio operating that goes beyond
> contesting. In everyday operating we call "CQ DX."  We put up antennas
> that are optimized for DX.  Hence, DX contests should continue to exist.
> 
> [3]  Reformulating rules of major contests during the trough of the
> sunspot cycle is a bad idea.  Many problems that occur because of poor
> propagation (lower activity, frequency congestion) simply "go away"
> when propagation improves.

It has nothing to do with the low sunspot numbers, propagation, etc.  It is
simply a fact that if you are making contacts in any contest, then the Q
should be of value to both stations, PERIOD.....  The value of the Q is
another story.  The different values assigned is the leveler.

> [4]  Revisiting the rules about QSO point structures of major contests
> periodically is a very good idea.  There is no reason why long-standing
> inequities cannot be addressed (examples:  the CQ WW's 2-point rule for
> North America only; the double-counting of low band multipliers in the
> WAE; the 5-to-1 ratio of points for DX versus domestic QSOs in the CQ
> 160).  

> The goal of any changes should be to remove barriers that
> discourage participation in areas where there could potentially be high
> activity, thus making the contest more enjoyable for all.

Hear, Hear!!!  Exactly.  How enjoyable is it to make contacts that yield
ZERO points?  Kinda like kissing you sister on the lips.
 
> As a W9, given the choice between (a) keeping DX contests as they are
> and accepting the fact that I will continue to get beat by every W1 with
a
> tower above 40 feet, and (b) changing the rules of DX contests so that
> domestic QSOs count (and thus opening up the possibility of a non-W1
> winning), I will choose the first alternative, because I simply like to
work
> DX.

Your mixing apples and oranges again, Patrick.  We are not talking about a
DX contest.  This is a prefix contest, PERIOD.  There are plenty of DX only
contests where you can square off against anyone you want.  All we are
saying is, "If a Q counts for one station, then it needs to be of value to
the other."
73 es good luck de

Milt Jensen    ARS  N5IA
Virden NM RT. Box 176
Duncan, AZ -- 85534
Home: 505-358-2105       FAX: 505-358-2447
Work:  520-359-2503       FAX: 520-359-2371 

>    -- Pat
>       N9RV
 
> 
> --
> CQ-Contest on WWW:        http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
> Administrative requests:  cq-contest-REQUEST at contesting.com


--
CQ-Contest on WWW:        http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests:  cq-contest-REQUEST at contesting.com