[CQ-Contest] Shall we argue how many Angels can dance on, the head of a pin?

[Mike Coslo]

Bill Turner wrote:
> ORIGINAL MESSAGE:
>
> On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 10:30:23 -0500, Michael Coslo <mjc5 at psu.edu>
> wrote:
>
>   
>> Trying to level the playing field is just one  
>> of those things that once you start it, there is no end.
>>     
>
> ------------ REPLY FOLLOWS ------------
>
> Do you think it was a bad idea to try to level the playing field by
> creating HP/LP/QRP categories? How about single vs multi-operator? Or
> assisted vs unassisted?
>
> Those were all adopted in an attempt to level the playing field, and
> they succeeded, I believe. Do you disagree? 
>
> 73, Bill W6WRT
>   
Somewhat, Bill.

I look at the situation depending on what happens to the scores:

In PAQSO, QRP operations automatically double the score. But those QRP 
stations are only kind of competing against the other stations. We have 
a separate winner of QRP, medium power and High power. I suppose that a 
QRP station might win a particular county over a higher power station at 
times, but it evens out mostly.

We have a philosophy of encouraging worthy modes of operation, which is 
why we give CW contacts 1.5 and 2 points per contact (next year all CW 
QSO's will be worth 2 points) But we're encouraging CW, not giving a 
"head start" to CW Ops so to speak.

As for the other classes, they are a convenient way to group like minded 
operators and allow them to compete against each other. I am comfortable 
saying this because the party results by class don't always reflect what 
might be expected re which class is expected to have the highest score.

    - 73 de Mike N3LI -