[CQ-Contest] Scoring System needs revision?

[W0MU Mike Fatchett]

If the same people win, why change anything?  While nobody wants to see 
the US working US...Ok nobody outside the US, consider for a moment that 
the USA is much like EU now.  EU gets to work other EU without penalty 
even though EU is effectively a bunch of states like the US.  What 
exactly is the difference?  Each US state creates their own laws and rules.

What we are seeing is a reflection of society.  Everyone feels entitled 
to something.

Trying to level the playing field while admirable will probably never 
happen.  Can we look at ways to do it.  Yes.

Could you ever level the playing field of a car race where you allowed 
entrants to race Formula One cars. old beat up 65 VW bugs, Semi trucks, 
farm tractors, motorcycles and bicycles?  This is exactly what we have 
in contesting.  We have competitors with super stations to competitors 
with just enough to hear and get out.

WRTC is probably as close as we will ever come to a level field of play, 
but only a select few get to compete.  This is reality as you can only 
have so many station so close and monitored etc.

While we have a tribanders and wires class in some contests there is no 
monitoring, no oversight. Maybe through local clubs, areas around the 
world could have "WRTC" like stations competing against each other.  
Club committees could certify a station as "WRTC" or "TW".

I am not sure all that work would make any difference in the big picture.

Mike W0MU

On 12/2/2013 8:00 AM, Yuri Blanarovich wrote:
> Bravo Fabio!
>
> That sounds like easiest fix to presently antiquated scoring per QSO.
> Also, this should eliminate ZERO points for own country.
> Any changes to scoring in the contest should try to keep the same 
> final score or allow increases so the All Time Records retain some value.
>
> Distance scoring will complicate things too much and give big boost to 
> those few sitting in the middle of nowhere far away from heavy density 
> areas (where everything is biiig points) and bitching will continue.
>
>  It will be interesting to see the analysis and comparison of few top 
> scorers, I suspect it will be not too far off and more "just" for 
> number of QSOs.
>
> Some time ago I tried to come up with the "ideal" contest rules for 
> Tesla Cup, using grid square multipliers and other equalizing 
> measures, but nobody helped to implement, it is easier to moan about 
> "injustice".
>
> 73  Yuri, K3BU.us
> www.MVmanor.com
>
>
>  On Mon, Dec 02, 2013 at 03:38 AM, Fabio I4UFH wrote:
>
>  > Hi Guys,
>>
>> Even it will be impossible to equalize the world, with the right 
>> equation, i have one more simple idea, that i didn’t show up, this 
>> year, apologies if if has still be discussed in the past :
>>
>>
>> Without scrambling software developers or online scores, or Software 
>> committee,
>> to endorse the DX QSO, i can suggest a different points related to 
>> your CQZone, no more Country or Continents.
>> Same CQ Zone     =    1     Points
>> Adjacent Zone        =    2    Points
>> Other Zone        =    3    Points
>>
>> For adjacent Zone i mean the CQZone that has borders with your Zone.
>>
>> Benefit ? Well everyone still will try the DX QSO. PJ will still have 
>> 3 points with NA,
>> but also TI, XE Zone 3 and 4 at 2 points, and zone 5 a 3 points, LU 
>> almost 3 points,
>> CN, EA8 2 points zone 14, 15 and 5, 3 point others, 9M will add more 
>> bloods with almost
>> JA’s a 3 points .. etc. etc.
>>
>> it’s is a brief analyze, obviously there will be some place in the 
>> world that still had advantages,
>> but are advantages related with his far away location, that is the 
>> core of the discussion.
>>
>> To calculate is very easy, every Zone has it’s adjacent  Zone , so no 
>> need to send different reports,
>> no need to distance approximate calculation, no need to add K’s 
>> factor to correct polar path, simply
>> a different point of view related with what still have … the CQZones..
>>
>> If i will have time into the December Holiday i will try to rescore 
>> old logs with these new rules !
>>
>> Just one more cents
>> 73 de Fabio I4UFH
>>
>>
>>
>> Il giorno 29/nov/2013, alle ore 21:36, Rick Kiessig  ha scritto:
>>
>>> I think it's a mistake to look at distance-based scoring strictly as a
>>> measure of effort to complete a QSO. Even though it's a much better 
>>> measure
>>> than DXCC or Zone, that's not the real intent, IMO.
>>>
>>> Instead, I think the goal is to get population-dense areas to point 
>>> their
>>> antennas away from each other, and out toward the rest of the world, by
>>> encouraging multiple contacts with distant places. CQWW's scoring 
>>> system of
>>> zero points for QSOs in your own country is a good first step, but when
>>> there are many countries (or another continent) right next door, 
>>> it's not as
>>> effective as it should be.
>>>
>>> 73, Rick ZL2HAM / ZM1G
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On 
>>> Behalf Of
>>> Aldewey at aol.com
>>> Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2013 5:31 AM
>>> To: cq-contest at contesting.com
>>> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQ WW Scoring System needs revision?
>>>
>>> Distance based scoring is something that was looked at in detail for 
>>> ARRL DX
>>> contest a couple years ago.  While it had it's advocates, there were a
>>> couple main concerns that caused us to set it aside for now. The 
>>> first was
>>> that, depending on propagation, the distance of a Contest QSO, does not
>>> always  equate to the effort needed to make that Q.  In many cases, 
>>> on 10
>>> and 15  meters for example, it is easier for someone Florida (for 
>>> example)
>>> to make a  contact with EU than it is the Caribbean.  The CAC actually
>>> worked with someone who re scored a couple past DX Contests using the
>>> Distance Based Scoring  and the results did not change all that much.
>>> Scores in the middle part of  the U.S. rose and scores on the east 
>>> coasts
>>> went down and the order of the top  ten changed a little but not 
>>> that much.
>>> Logging software would have to  change of course and we were 
>>> concerned that
>>> there were many contesters that  would not be comfortable with Grid 
>>> Squares
>>> (which would give the most accurate  results).  Finally, the 
>>> majority of the
>>> contesters we talked to were not in  favor or such a change.
>>>
>>> So, at least for now, the change was not recommended.
>>>
>>> 73,
>>>
>>> AL, K0AD
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest