[CQ-Contest] Is it time to reevaluate CQWW Scoring Rules?

[Martin Durham]

Hi Dave,

By using 'them' as your examples Dave, you 'do' make it about them and their
choice of location. 

The 'scoring' methodology has worked very well for however long the contest
has been in play. I contested for many years from New England and then had
the "pleasure" to try it from Minnesota...Black Hole is being kind...should
we 'adjust' the rules so that W0's in Minnesota and the Dakota's have a
'level' playing field?

Someone mentioned the scoring of ARRL DX contests and how that seemed to
work just fine...Well, it does because in THAT contest it is the world
working the US/VE...a very different metric from the CQWW contests. 

I operate from NQ4I for the CQWW CW every year (since 2005) and we are
disadvantaged from the KC1XX's, K3LR's, and W3LPL's of the US...because of
their proximity to EU. Yet we get on every contest and strive to do the BEST
WE CAN WITH WHAT we've got. This CQCW we put up the best score ever for
Rick's station on CW...we're still looking like 5th place...but hey, we're
gaining...and we beat a couple of the "big three" on a couple of the bands.

If you focused as much effort on 'having fun' as you do on trying to make
changes to the rules...Man, I can only imagine how much fun you'd be having.

I go to V26 for ARRL because it is closer to the US than PJ2 and P40...but
it's not as close as 6Y1V...and you guys have the advantage...big time...on
the lower bands...but we don't complain about it. 

73,

W1MD

-----Original Message-----
From: David Kopacz [mailto:david.kopacz at aspwebhosting.com] 
Sent: Sunday, December 06, 2009 8:42 PM
To: Martin Durham
Subject: RE: [CQ-Contest] Is it time to reevaluate CQWW Scoring Rules?

Next you said...

"Stop beating a dead horse...if you want to make a 'play' for revamping the
rules for CQWW then use another argument"

There is no other argument. Not everyone can operate from the limited 3
point islands, nor can we put, or should we put, 10 or 15 stations on one of
them.

My argument wasn't about whether or not they knew the rules or consequences,
my argument is much more simple.

One operator outperformed the other and lost. Because of which location you
say "he chose" is not a good reason to lose.

The scoring system is not fair, has never been fair and needs to be
re-evaluated. I simply used this one case as an example. There are dozens
more just like it.

So again, I say your statement is ludicrous. The problem IS the scoring
system sucks!

Sincerely, 

David Kopacz, CTO
Rational Certified Developer, MCSE+I 

ASPwebhosting.com, LLC
Microsoft Certified Partner
4044 Fort Campbell Blvd, #308, Hopkinsville, Kentucky 42240 1.888.277.9320
U.S. & Canada
1.502.410.2922 International 

SIP: dial at freecall.aspwebhosting.com 

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: 
The information contained in this electronic transmission is PRIVILEGED and
CONFIDENTIAL information intended only to be viewed by the individual,
entity or entities named as recipient(s). You are hereby notified that any
dissemination, distribution or copy of this communication is strictly
prohibited and a violation of your service agreement. If you have received
this communication in error, please notify ASPwebhosting.com, LLC
immediately by electronic mail or by telephone and permanently delete this
message from your computer.


-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Durham [mailto:w1md at cfl.rr.com]
Sent: Sunday, December 06, 2009 7:22 PM
To: David Kopacz
Subject: RE: [CQ-Contest] Is it time to reevaluate CQWW Scoring Rules?

Dave,

Nowhere did I say "just because something "is""...makes it right. What I
said was that V47NT and EF8M both understood the rules and scoring of the
contest prior to going to their respective 'corners' and competing...

Tell me how THAT is ludicrous...

v/r

Marty
W1MD

-----Original Message-----
From: David Kopacz [mailto:david.kopacz at aspwebhosting.com]
Sent: Sunday, December 06, 2009 6:44 PM
To: w1md at cfl.rr.com
Subject: RE: [CQ-Contest] Is it time to reevaluate CQWW Scoring Rules?

You argument is ludicrous.

Just because something IS, doesn't make it right!


Sincerely, 

David Kopacz, CTO
Rational Certified Developer, MCSE+I 

ASPwebhosting.com, LLC
Microsoft Certified Partner
4044 Fort Campbell Blvd, #308, Hopkinsville, Kentucky 42240 1.888.277.9320
U.S. & Canada
1.502.410.2922 International 

SIP: dial at freecall.aspwebhosting.com 

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: 
The information contained in this electronic transmission is PRIVILEGED and
CONFIDENTIAL information intended only to be viewed by the individual,
entity or entities named as recipient(s). You are hereby notified that any
dissemination, distribution or copy of this communication is strictly
prohibited and a violation of your service agreement. If you have received
this communication in error, please notify ASPwebhosting.com, LLC
immediately by electronic mail or by telephone and permanently delete this
message from your computer.


-----Original Message-----
From: cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com
[mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of w1md at cfl.rr.com
Sent: Sunday, December 06, 2009 2:40 PM
To: cq-contest at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Is it time to reevaluate CQWW Scoring Rules?

It's "fair" because BOTH parties new exactly what they were up against
BEFORE the contest started.

Stop beating a dead horse...if you want to make a 'play' for revamping the
rules for CQWW then use another argument. When folks go to 2pt. land vs.
3pt. land they know before the contest starts that they are going to be
disadvantaged. You knew it before you decided to invest in 6y1v...

W1MD


---- David Kopacz <david.kopacz at aspwebhosting.com> wrote: 
> "And if now V47NT wants to win the world he should go to a 3 pts 
> country. "
> 
> Yes, this is a great idea! Let's simply move all the best operators
and
> stations to 3 point countries. I can see it now.
> 
> 25 station on P40, 32 station on PJ2 and 45 on EA8. This makes great 
> sense.
> 
> I never stated that EU stations should continue to only get one point 
> for EU QSO's while Caribbean stations continue to get 2 points each
QSO.
> Ask any US station if they are frustrated getting 0 points for "in 
> country" QSO's. I merely made a simple observation that V47NT out 
> performed EF8M and lost. How is this fair?
> 
> This was just ONE observation. There are many more. I simply do not 
> think that one person should have an unfair advantage over another 
> simply because he chooses to go to a 3 point location. Do you have any

> idea how much work it is to set up a station on a remote island? I can

> tell you just getting the equipment there and clearing customs was a 
> major undertaking! Think about clearing a jungle on the side of a hill

> and then jack hammering through volcanic rock to put up 6 towers and
guy
> anchors. This is no small task.
> 
> I could move the 6Y1V station to PJ2 P40 CT3 EA8 HC8, but how much fun

> would that be for those people already there or for everyone else 
> working those more rare multipliers? I am quite certain that everyone
in
> Europe pointing their yagis to NA enjoys working a handful of
Caribbean
> stations over the thousands of US stations on the band. Think how much

> fun it would be next year if instead of logging PJ2T 6Y1V and V47NT,
you
> instead log PJ2T, PJ2V and PJ2NT.
> 
> Think about it, how many stations do you think could operate from HC8 
> before the multiplier is diluted? I suggest if I moved 6Y1V there, 
> neither HC8N nor my station HC8V would win a contest simply because 
> people wouldn't make an effort to work both of us. Once they worked on

> station for the multiplier the other station would be ignored.
> 
> Telling people to choose a 3 point location is NOT the answer. Making 
> small adjustments to the scoring in order to level the playing field
so
> the same stations aren't always winning year after year when they are 
> clearly not making the most QSO's and multipliers is more appropriate.
> 
> David ~ KY1V
> 	
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest