[CQ-Contest] Self Spotting

[W0UN -- John Brosnahan]

>
>I'm suggesting that non-CQing stations should receive
>2x points for those contacts, because S&P rates are
>one half of the run rates.

Barry--

I don't think what you propose works in social engineering nor in
contests.  Let's see, someone is too lazy, poor, or just doesn't care
to build a decent station so we don't want that person to feel bad so
HE will get more points for HIS QSOs than the guy who works harder,
and is more motivated.  Well I guess we could let passenger cars enter
the INDY 500 race but since they can't go as fast they would only
have to do 250 miles instead.  So that each of their miles counted
twice as much as the miles from someone who spends the time,
money, and effort to make a competitive car and learns how to
drive it (or has a guest op/driver).

Oh, and by the way, we don't want little kids to feel disappointed
and have their egos bruised so we won't give any grades that
might actually help them realize that the rewards in life come
from working hard for those rewards and not from handouts.

Level the playing field?  Then I am out of here!  I like to exercise and
challenge my abilities, but if the metrics and rewards go away there is
no point.

Guess you can tell I am passionate about this issue!    ;-)

73--John  W0UN

------------------------------------------------------------------------
At 10:01 PM 3/30/2004, you wrote:

>I'm not penalizing broadcast stations that sit on
>one frequency making 100 Q's per hour; their
>year-to-year scoring would not be changed.
>
>I'm suggesting that non-CQing stations should receive
>2x points for those contacts, because S&P rates are
>one half of the run rates.
>
>That would bring parity in scores for those that can
>run with those that can't, but still work just as hard.
>
>Barry
-------------- next part --------------

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.601 / Virus Database: 382 - Release Date: 2/29/2004