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

Tue Dec 15 20:31:15 PST 2009

I think that it is pretty much accepted that because of the fact that the population centers aren't evenly distributed the playing field will never be level. 

I don't believe that there is merit to comparing scores between stations in different areas. 

What does make sense is comparing yourself to your own previous scores and with other stations in your area that are similar. 

Contest sponsors can make this easier by having a wide variety of categories. 

I think that the TB-Wires category is a good one. Another one would be indoor antennas. Another one would be wire antennas only. 

So, I would enter as SO, Assisted, HP, WireAntOnly. 

You would enter as SO, LP, WireAntOnly. 

In the scores I would be interested in others who were wireantonly as well as TB-Wires. See how badly those with the tribanders beat me on 10-15-20 meters. 

What someone did in another part of the country or on another continent is of little interest to me anyways. I'll look at the scores but they don't have any relation to mine. 

That's how I look at it. 

Contesting has many levels. 

As far as casual participants go, I thought it was nice that during the last FOC contest, the participants quite often thanked me for participating once my lack of a FOC number in the exchange indicated to them that I was not a member of their group. Very nice people. 

73 all and good contesting. 

Scott Currier KT1B
Haverhill, MA 

> From: shore1 at xplornet.com
> To: k4ww at arrl.net
> Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 07:59:33 -0800
> CC: cq-contest at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] [SUSPECTED SPAM] Re: Is it time to reevaluate	CQWWScoring Rules?
> 
> To see a post like that makes me ill to think someone could say such a thing and that alone would turn me off helping others as a casual operator to obtain points from someone like me and to further that, would turn me off of partaking an active role as a casual participant in that contest at all....yes....I agree.....it is time to re-evaluate CQWW scoring rules ....I think in simple terms......to make the CQWW fair for every participant regardless where they are located to avoid allowing one the advantage over another and to keep this all honest ....here is my simple thoughts on this matter:
> 
> 1 point for each contact, 2 points for each continent, 3 points for working qrp/mobile stations, and each participant would get a certificate of participation regardless of end of contest points status. QSL CARD MUST BE OBTAINED FROM EACH PARTICIPANT TO PROVE ACTUAL CONTACT AND MUST BE CHECKED VIA OFFICIAL CARD CHECKERS (same as for dxcc and any other awards etc) This would entice even more casual participants to come out and play, and these contests would also help them to attain WAS, DXCC among others, provided as a rule, each of the participants sent qsl cards to PROVE actual contacts, this is also a way of cheat-checking.....less DQ's and more honesty in the game.....this would make it a level playing field for all..... no more cluster spot games, no more of some stations having a unique advantage over others because of location, no more stacking of the deck, and the one(s) who work the hardest honestly and everyone would know via assigned card checkers, who would win eac
>  h type of entry..... to me this would be the most honest and fair way for all to enjoy the contest, sure....yes it might take longer to declare a winner but at least it would then be an honest win.
> 
> IMHO This would take care of a lot of the bickering and fighting going on constantly before during and after contests like this and would make it FAIR for ALL participants regardless of what role one plays in the contest.
> 
> best dx
> good luck in the contest....
> 73 de John
> VE7JZ
> 100w PEP with only homebrew wire antennas 30 ft high or less for EVERY band, and a casual participant in contests (there giving points, participating and enjoying the challenges one faces in CQWW .....that is what it is all about!)
>   
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Shelby Summerville" <k4ww at arrl.net>
> To: <cq-contest at contesting.com>
> Sent: Monday, December 14, 2009 2:12 AM
> Subject: [CQ-Contest] [SUSPECTED SPAM] Re: Is it time to reevaluate CQWWScoring Rules?
> 
> 
> > f5vhj at orange.fr wrote: "If the casual operator does not know their exact 
> > location, they can leave the radio off."
> > 
> > IMHO, this type of attitude is exactly what is NOT needed? Without the 
> > "casual" participant, scores would diminish tremendously, and make the later 
> > hours, very boring?
> > 
> > 73, Shelby - K4WW 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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

_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/171222986/direct/01/