[CQ-Contest] CQWW Contest rule changes, zero points QSO's, etc.

N4XM Paul D. Schrader n4xm at iglou.com
Mon Dec 5 16:03:06 EST 2005


They should propose that for themselves.  Something similar would be in order.
The idea is to bring the geographic sections to a balance in the same country.
Since you would not be adding to the score of the most capable location in
that country, the international competition between countries would remain
the same.

The same idea could be used to balance things between different countries.
But I propose we first would need to try to do that within countries first.
could use the USA as a test vehicle.  And we could try it out by scoring
the contest two ways for a few years.  This would be very easy with computers.
Contest operation would not be changed.

As to stopping the CQing, probably not practical outside the USA.

Some might say that not allowing CQing in the USA would make them
non-competitive in relation to the rest of the world.  But that is already the
case because of better and rarer DX locations now.  (Also think of the
energy saving!!!)


Paul  N4XM

At 10:33 PM 12/4/2005 -0000, you wrote:
>Great... except the majority of the world's contesters aren't in the USA. 
>What are your proposed multipliers for G, GI, GD, HB9, HB0, JA, BY, T8, 8P, 
>LU, CE0Z....
>Until then, your proposals are no solution.  The difference in contesting, 
>certainly on CW, between GI and G is at least as big as between the Eastern 
>USA and the midwest.  Trust me, I've done both.
>Gerry G0RTN
>Vanity Page at http://www.gerrylynch.co.uk
>"In days of old, when ops were bold, and sidebands not invented,
>The word would pass, by pounding brass, and all were well contented."
>----- Original Message ----- 
>From: "N4XM Paul D. Schrader" <n4xm at iglou.com>
>To: <cq-contest at contesting.com>
>Sent: Friday, December 02, 2005 7:11 PM
>Subject: [CQ-Contest] CQWW Contest rule changes, zero points QSO's, etc.
>>I have had to read so much of this stuff, I finally am driven to have MY 
>> First, as a long time contester, I have learned that the rules are the 
>> same
>> for everyone.
>> There is some advantage for certain locations.  The ability to compete in 
>> a
>> given location is
>> accomplished by doing the best type of operating, etc. within the rules.
>> THE rules don't
>> matter, except perhaps as location related.  In most contests the 'EAST 
>> has an advantage for several reasons; if you didn't like it you could
>> always move there.
>> Second,  in the "old days" US stations were STRONGLY discouraged from
>> calling CQ
>> as it cluttered the bands in such a manner that the DX was hard to hear.
>> Perhaps if it
>> were a rule that CQing was not allowed in the USA, the zero point QSO's
>> would also
>> decrease immensely and ALL would have MORE FUN.  I know I would certainly 
>> hear
>> better and the "EAST COAST" advantage would also be reduced slightly.
>> Third,  instead of complaining about zero point QSO's, realize that it is
>> the operating
>> method you have chosen (CQing), rather than the rules that is causing a
>> large number
>> (most) of them.  The other CQing stations are also having additional zero
>> point QSO's.
>> Fourth, I am not proposing any rule changes myself, but if I were they
>> would be:
>> 1)  No USA CQing allowed.
>> 2)  A SMOOTH GRADUATED multiplier for the total score based on station
>> location.
>> This needs some effort to determine and perhaps would need to be 
>> determined
>> slightly
>> differently each year.  It MIGHT consist of two components-a pre contest
>> component and
>> an after contest component.
>> Examples  W1 Score Multiplier of 1.0
>>                W2 Score Multiplier of 1.02
>>     W4    Score Multiplier (determined by Longitude and Latitude) of
>> 1.03-1.30
>>     W5    Score multiplier (determined by Longitude and Latitude) of
>> 1.20-1.50
>>     W6    Score multiplier 2.0
>>     W7    Score multiplier 1.9-2.2
>>     W9    Score multiplier (determined by Longitude and Latitude) of
>> 1.20-1.60
>>                An after contest location adjustment of no more than an
>> additional 1.10 X,
>>                determined by a group of ??????.  (1.0-1.10)  Could/should
>> vary by location.
>>     Perhaps this should be a "by band"  multiplier system that is by 
>> location
>>                and by band..
>> One more comment.  We don't want to encourage more "local" contacts in a 
>> DX
>> contest
>> by making them have a point value.  I remind you of the old time rule in
>> the ARRL CW DX
>> Contest that only allowed 6 QSO's with each DX country on each band (to
>> reduce the
>> local interference); and this was with a 96 hour contest!
>> Perhaps 1) should be considered?
>> Comments?
>> 73
>> Paul N4XM (ex W4BCV, WA6HQR)
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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