[CQ-Contest] zero pointers etc

[Frank Hunt]

Tweak the CQ WW scoring rules ?

What about a complete re-write that would level the playing field for 
everyone, because it should be noted that there are some people who 
do not live in either North America or Europe !

Here is one idea:
Same country - 1 pt
Different country - 2 pts
Same continent - 1 pt
Adjoining continent - 2 pts
Non-adjoining continent - 4 pts

Or what about:
Same zone - 1 pt
Adjoining zone - 2 pts
Non-adjoining zone - 4 pts
(Yes W2/W6 qso = 2 pts, and
IG8 or EA8/zone14 or 15 = 1 pt, and also
the Caribbean island beach stations to zones 4 or 5 = 1pt)

Or real simple:
Same hemisphere - 1 pt
Different hemisphere - 2 pts
(north or south of equator)

And as for multipliers, what about :
Same continent = 0
Different continent = 1
or 
Same continent = 1
Different continent = x2

But wait!, there's more.....which I haven't thought of yet :-))

73, Frank ZL4BR

-----Previous Message-----
On 29 Nov 2005 Gerard Lynch wrote:

> Er... not quite.  They were readily workable at *1* point each.  That's a 
> big difference.  Only North America benefits from the 2-point 
> intra-continental rule.
> 
> [Warning: Long rant follows]
> 
> I can understand the logic of this given that W dominates North America in 
> terms of contesting population in a way that no other does... even JA 
> doesn't even come close within Asia.  Or at least I can understand it for W 
> stations - I can't understand why a VE or a C6 gets 2 points for working 
> endless W stations next door, while I get 1 point for working DLs, or even 
> more bizarrely a TA2 gets 1 point for working JAs half a world away.
> 
> Of course, there is always going to be a huge advantage in being just the 
> other side of a boundary... which is why, of course, EA8, CN, CT3 and IH9 
> are such good contesting locations.  3 points and a gaggle of multipliers on 
> your doorstep and still with easy access to North America.  IH9 is simply 
> the best location in the world for low band contesting, given the current 
> points structure, with an endless supply of Europeans at 3 points a time, 
> not to mention making easy meat of all the European multipliers.
> 
> Well, there we are.  That's life.  Contesting can't be an absolutely fair 
> sport, and those who win maximise their advantages within the rules and 
> scoring framework.  Sure, not everyone can travel to DX locations for a 
> contest, but then again, some people live on the top of a mountain and 
> others live in the bottom of a valley.  A station on the Asian side of 
> Istanbul gets 0 points for working a station 2000km away on the Iranian 
> border, only 1 point for working a station at the Eastern tip of Siberia 
> 8000km away on a difficult path, but 3 points for working a station on the 
> other side of town who he can see from his shack window - maybe as little as 
> 2km away.  You could move the boundaries, you can change the points 
> structure, you can try and make it as fair as possible but ultimately you'll 
> still have people with big advantages from being just on the right side of a 
> boundary.
> 
> And you can't change the laws of physics... the biggest densities of contest 
> activity are in Europe and Eastern North America.  Someone stuck in the 
> middle of the Pacific can't do anything about being on the wrong side of the 
> pole and JA and W6 just don't make up the numbers.  Similarly, someone in JW 
> can't do much about being crippled by Aurora (did you notice the rough AC 
> note JW1CCA had this weekend?) while somebody in HC or YB will have great 
> high bands propagation in the middle of the night.
> 
> Of course we could move to a points per kilometre scoring system like is 
> used in Europe on VHF, with us all exchanging 6 character locators.  But 
> then there would still be big advantages in being in some places... 
> specifically dead South, and a long way South, of as much of Europe and 
> Eastern North America as possible.  LUs would be unbeatable in that 
> situation or maybe ZD8 would be the killer location.  Maybe it would be 
> somewhere else, I'm just musing out loud.  But in any case, people would 
> invest considerable time in effort in finding out where they could win from, 
> just like they do at present.
> 
> Now, all this applies to CQ WW... now that USA stations (rightly) get a 
> point for working each other in WPX I don't see the need for the double 
> points bonus within North America in that contest.  Let's change *that* rule 
> before we start tackling the more robust CQWW structure.  (Let the flames 
> begin).
> 
> 73
> 
> 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." 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>