[CQ-Contest] 1 ponters for CQWW - A PROPOSED SOLUTION

Kelly Taylor ve4xt at mts.net
Sat Dec 3 09:51:38 EST 2005

As well-intentioned as these ideas are, they really solve very little.

We all know what the rules are. We understand that it's an imposition to
work a same-country station for the mult. We realize that it's most polite
in this circumstance to wait till the station we want to work has hit a bit
of a lull, or simply find another same-country station who isn't running at
100 an hour. We realize the value in explaining ourselves with a 'tnx for
the mult.' We know that it doesn't matter which VE station we get for the VE
mult, or which K counts as the U.S. mult.

We, generally, aren't the problem.

It certainly sounds as though the majority of zero-point QSOs are coming
from folk who don't know the rules, have no reason to care about the rules
and, bless their hearts, think they're helping. After all, it's their
Amateur Radio too.

We must also guard against unintended consequences: if we change the rules
to try to 'solve' the zero-point problem, how much time are we going to then
waste explaining the rules to the good-hearted souls who call in?

I can just see the thread after the first such WW: how do we tell
non-contester W stations to not call us? And then the thread after the first
following SS: why do we have so few casuals?

If your intention is to give contesting an even worse reputation than it
already has, by all means adopt rules that will cause stations to tell
others to go away. Even in the most polite language, even with the most
adept explanation, that's not going to sit well.

I also see some hypocrisy here: when Black Holers mention their geographic
disadvantage in contesting, the typical response (and I don't really argue
it) is either move to New England or shut up.

Perhaps this is simply another geographic fact of life some stations must
live with more than others.

73, kelly

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Sherman Banks" <w4atl at earthlink.net>
To: <cq-contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Friday, December 02, 2005 3:48 PM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] 1 ponters for CQWW - A PROPOSED SOLUTION

> This solution does not allow the CQing station to get a mult credit
> since 00 and not a 03/04/05 is sent.  It would seem to me that the best
> solution, in order to keep the "flavor" of CQWW, is to automatically
> give mult credit for your country and country's zone(s) for each band.
> Then, US stations would not need to make 0 point QSOs for the mult, the
> Europeans are happy since US stations aren't working each other
> inflating the scores for a "win", and scores are not dramatically
> changed keeping records intact.
> > Excuse me for repeating myself, but when I posted this
> > earlier NQ4I was the only one who picked up
> > on what I had proposed.
> ...
> > Let's reward each station for the QSO.  Let the calling
> > station get multiplier credit for the
> > same-country/zone (but zero points as it is now) but the
> > CQing station gets 1 point for the QSO. To
> > let the CQing station know that the caller needs the
> > same-country/zone multiplier, let the caller
> > send "00" (zero-zero) as the zone in his exchange. So
> > everyone gets 1 point for each "00" zone they
> > work and those who work stations in their same-country/zone
> > get the multiplier but zero points.
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list