[CQ-Contest] INNOVATIVE IDEA??

[Ward Silver]

Shooting from the hip here - if the proposal was "outside your own zone"
instead of "outside your own country", it would reduce the
big-country/little-country lopsidedness.  In this way I could still work
Zones 4 and 5 for points at roughly the same distances involved for Zones
14, 15, and 16.  This would also make things lots more fun for the VKs,
ZLs, and JAs.

This might eventually lead to having a big table of QSO points versus
zone-and-country that would reflect the actual difficulty involved.  The
Stew Perry contest scoring based on grid squares is a step in this
direction.  The premise of using a table requires that computer logging be
used, but we're headed in that direction anyway...

73, Ward N0AX

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	owner-cq-contest at contesting.com
> [mailto:owner-cq-contest at contesting.com] On Behalf Of James Neiger
> Sent:	Thursday, July 30, 1998 4:18 PM
> To:	Contest Reflector
> Subject:	[CQ-Contest] INNOVATIVE IDEA??
> 
> 
> My "innovative idea" for the month of July is proposed as a potential
> solution to the 1 point - 2 points -3 points inequity inherent in the CQ
> WW DX Contest scoring that has bothered some/many over the years.
> 
> This pre-supposes that the current scoring IS inequitable.  Does that
> require further debate??  For those who believe that answer is YES,
> please read no further.
> 
>  For those who think it isn't fair for 9Y4AA to work N6TJ and receive 3
> points while 8P6J (a mere 200 miles away, but not any closer to
> California) works N6TJ and receives 2 points, or
> for those who think it isn't fair for JY7Z to work JA1ABC thousands of
> miles away and receive 1 point, while EA9LZ can work ZB2X while he
> visually can see Gibralter from his kitchen window and receive 3 points,
> my proposal is the so-called Option 5 that some of us "kicked around"
> twenty years ago:
> 
> All QSO's in your country  :  ZERO POINTS
> 
> All QSO's outside your country  :  THREE POINTS
> 
> 
> Some will say that the CQ WW will become a European Sweepstakes,
> especially on the low bands.  Maybe so.  But everyone still needs the
> multipliers (country AND zones) and everyone will still want to work
> everyone else since ALL QSO's (out of your country) count the same,
> i.e., 3 points.
> 
> Should we have a one time experiment to find out??
> 
> My proposal to start the  new millenium (some incorrectly believe that
> the year 2000 is the first year of the new millenium):
> 
> FOR THE YEAR 2000 CQ WW DX CONTESTS  ONLY
> 
> Put all existing CQ WW Records on-hold, and let's try the contest with
> Option 5 above for the year 2000, ONLY.
> 
> Conditions should be great, and truly worthy of a new concept.  We have
> over 2 years to publicize this, and who knows, it may result in so many
> expeditions to the formerly disadvantaged Caribbean, Central American,
> and European and Asian countries, all time multiplier numbers
> surpassed.  The only ones who should have a legitimate complaint about
> this are those who are currently advantaged, i.e., Northern South
> America and West Africa.
> 
> What say guys??  What do we have to lose??
> 
> 
> 
>                           Vy 73
> 
> 
>                             Jim Neiger
>                             N6TJ
> 
> 
> --
> 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
> 



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