[CQ-Contest] Towards a critical examination of the 2-point rule in CQWW

[W0MU Mike Fatchett]

I stopped reading this when you lumped NA and SA to make up for the 
number of EU countries.   EU is nearly 4 million sq miles while NA alone 
is nearly 10 million Sq miles.

What happens to the multipliers when you lump in Africa with EU, which 
to me is the same as lumping in SA with NA.

CQ WW will never be scored "fairly" from a geographic standpoint. Why do 
people go to PJ and 9Y land?  for 3 pointers plain and simple.  If there 
were more 3 point Caribbean islands you would see more of them activated.

Some randomly drawn lines created these imbalances.



Mike W0MU

On 11/28/2013 6:20 AM, Kim Östman wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> Bob's N6BK / HS0ZIA e-mail to the reflector triggered some (long...)
> thoughts in my head. He wondered why North American (NA) stations in CQWW
> get 2 points for each NA QSO outside their own country, when it's 1 point
> for everybody else in the world. I also brought up this question in March in
> conjunction with the CQWW survey. At the time, a kind veteran US contester
> answered me privately, explaining that the rule was created decades ago when
> there was a need to encourage activity especially from zone 8 (the northern
> Caribbean). The world was a different place back then.
>
> To bring some analytical structure to the discussion, let's examine what I
> see as the most common arguments for maintaining the status quo:
>
> 1. "The rule evens out the imbalance between the number of available NA and
> EU countries" = multipliers. ===> The numbers show that there are 73 EU
> multipliers and 50 NA multipliers. Being in zone 7/zone 8 (from here on:
> z7/z8) on the doorstep of SA brings in 32 additional SA multipliers, and as
> the map shows, many are in very close proximity. So that's 73 (EU) vs. 50 +
> 32 = 82 (NA & SA): the numbers don't support this argument.
>
> 2. "You can't log the existing multipliers due to lower activity level in
> the NA/SA vs. EU countries." ===> That's already retreating from and
> shifting the original argument. You need one single station for the
> multiplier, and if you're in a rare zone/country and have put in an effort
> to have a good signal, chances are they will find you without you even
> having to hunt them down. This year in CQWW CW, I worked 55 different EU
> multipliers vs. 40 different NA/SA multipliers, from up here in the
> propagationally challenged Aurora Belt where NA/SA is actually challenging
> to reach. In the 2012 CQWW CW, one of the top z8 stations worked 57 EU vs.
> 40 NA/SA multipliers. A log analysis covering multiple years will provide a
> more reliable view.
>
> 3. "There are less stations available for QSO points." ===> First, EU has a
> virtually endless supply of other 1-point EU stations. But likewise, z7/z8
> have an endless supply of US stations to work. Second, the EU <-> NA 3-point
> DX highway is open for z7/z8, and good antenna systems result in good
> signals even down to 80m or 160m. Likewise, the EU guys with good systems
> get a nice number of NA contacts even on the low bands. Of course z7/z8 are
> further away from EU than z5 is and the openings are shorter. But then
> again, z15/z16 are also further away from NA than z14 is. We accept the
> reality, work as many NA/SA as we can and then attempt to make up for it in
> other ways. It's all about strategy!
>
> 4. "z7/z8 NA stations are disadvantaged relative to the z9 SA stations,
> which are *just a few hundred kilometers away*." ===> So what about southern
> Europe and the hot-bed AF z33 in close proximity? Are the serious contesters
> in southern Spain asking for rules exceptions in the form of 2-point (or
> even 3-point) EU QSOs, because close-by 3V and CN get 3? No. If their
> concern is to win the world, they simply travel to places such as z33.
>
> An interesting further point emerges when looking at the 2013 CQWW survey
> results
> (http://www.cqww.com/files/2013_CQWWDX_Contest_Survey_27Apr2013.pdf),
> questions #9 and #10. The former was about increasing the intra-NA points
> for "z1-z5 <-> z6-z8" QSOs from 2 to 3, and the latter was about increasing
> "JA <-> rest of Asia" points from 1 to 3.
>
> Funnily enough, a higher number of respondents (31.9%) thought that NA QSOs
> should be valued 3 points than that Asians hams should be rewarded with 3
> points (27.7%). Even more interesting is that a greater number (32.9%)
> thought that Asians should NOT be rewarded than that NA QSOs should NOT be 3
> points (26.2%)! There were 2.5% less people with "no opinion" in the Asian
> question (NA: 41.9%, AS: 39.4%).
>
> ==> In light of all the above, is the 2-point (or proposed 3-point)
> exception really about creating a level playing field? For a global group of
> participants, in a global contest?
>
> Finally, a personal example, not to toot my own horn (I have as many flaws
> as the next guy) but to illustrate the point. Last year I was trusted with
> the wonderful opportunity to operate CQWW CW as SOAB HP from a southern
> European superstation. It was tons of fun for this frozen OH guy and quite
> the learning experience.
>
> But I was in 1-point EU; had I been just a few hundred kilometers south and
> worked the exact same people, I would have won the whole damn thing. Such a
> comparison is of course too simplistic, but it makes the point, and relates
> directly to the z7/z8 vs. z9 argument about such a small distance placing
> one in a 1-point (or, well, 2...!) area vs. a 3-point area. Did I start
> requesting beneficial exceptions for my location so as to "correct" the
> perceived injustice? Of course not. I accept the fundamental continental
> divide, no matter the relative disadvantage for me in the fight for the top
> spot.
>
> Summa summarum, I think the above analysis shows that serious
> reconsideration is needed for an exception that was created for a reason
> that no longer exists. We are all equal, but this is making some "more equal
> than others," as one author famously coined. Perhaps distance scoring
> schemes could help, but I suspect the devil would again emerge in the
> details.
>
> I may be a naïve idealist, but I'd like to think that we are an
> international contesting community, one that continuously seeks for better
> ways of understanding, acknowledging, and encouraging each other in positive
> ways. In the long term, exceptions that privilege given subsets are highly
> counter-productive to this higher purpose. What do you think?
>
> Sincerely,
>
> 73
> Kim OH6KZP
>
> P.S. Up here in the barren lands of the EU Aurora Belt, we should get 4
> points for all DX QSOs that we manage to squeeze through. I'm sure that our
> fate-sharing friends in Alaska and Nunavut will agree :) But actually, the
> guys really getting screwed over are in Oceania, and they get hardly any
> consideration. In my opinion it's a testament to their dedication that they
> bother participating at all. If anything, most of them should get at least 5
> points for all contacts...
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest