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

[K1TTT]

I'VE GOT IT!  The absolute perfect scoring system so everyone is happy!!!

Score=year * 1000

EVERYONE WINS!  Of course it might be a few centuries before some of the
records are broken, but no one can whine any more!


Of course now we can argue about who's calendar we are going to use, and
does this give those who use the Jewish calendar an advantage over the
Gregorian calendar, and what about Chinese years that are named instead of
numbered?

DRAT, it seemed so good!  Maybe just replace everyone's score with a random
number and argue about distribution functions instead.

David Robbins K1TTT
e-mail: mailto:k1ttt at arrl.net
web: http://www.k1ttt.net
AR-Cluster node: 145.69MHz or telnet://dxc.k1ttt.net
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: wally [mailto:wally at el-soft.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 09:33
> To: cq-contest at contesting.com
> Subject: [CQ-Contest] Is it time to reevaluate CQWW Scoring Rules?
> 
> David,
> 
> Ask CQWW CC to make additional alternative Top Scores list based on :
> 
> 1pt for each 1000 km (or better 500 km ) distance covered for each QSO.
> Same multiplier system - C + Z.
> This alternative Top Scores list could be released on-line only, if there
> is
> no space for it in the magazine "Results" article.
> 
> Another possibility
> Find someone to make a software and make the calculations after official
> results are released by CQWW CC. Logs are open now and this could be done
> and
> uploaded on-line. Then every one will decide for him/her self which of
> both
> Top Scores lists is more meaningfull for him/her.
> 
> Thus, everyone I guess will be kept happy, too :-).
> My 2 cents :-).
> 
> 73, Wally LZ2CJ
> 
> 
> EA8CMX   476,652   1264   27   105
> GI0KOW   414,392   2270   26   110
> 
> This is an excellent example. Some have said, "just do better, work
> harder". How hard does one have to work to win? It's nearly impossible
> when the odds are stacked against you. A few have said, "choose a better
> location", but not everyone has the luxury. I received one response
> stating "location location location" to which I respond, this isn't a
> retail store, it's a radio contest by hobbyists. I have seen responses
> stating "it's just for fun", and though we all have fun, some of that
> fun is lost when you lose after you have outperformed your competition.
> 
> Of the few that have replied negatively to my original post, there are
> dozens that have written to me privately agreeing with my observation
> that the current scoring is unfair. Unfortunately, due to attacks from
> fellow contesters, many simply won't state their opinions publicly. I
> can't say I blame them. Personally, I can take all that can be dished
> out and I am not interested in popularity, so I speak my mind no matter
> the cost.
> 
> I am pleased to see a few others willing to support discussion publicly
> despite the likely hood of being attacked because of their opinions.
> 
> I am very interested in ideas how the scoring system could be changed in
> a manner that gives everyone a fair chance to win, regardless of
> location.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest