[CQ-Contest] 2 point rule

[Jack Haverty.]

IMHO, it's necessary to understand what a scoring system is intended to
measure, before you can judge whether or not it is "fair", or even if it is
accomplishing that purpose.

I used to think that scores measured primarily radio skills.  Some QSOs are
harder to make than others, and require more skill, so they provide more
points.   At the end of the competition, whoever had the most points was
"best" at doing whatever the score was measuring - which was some kind of
radio skill depending on the particular focus of the contest.

But in this forum I've learned that scoring had other purposes.  Perhaps it
was to encourage more rare locations to be on the air.   Or encourage more
people to compete.  Or ...?

It strikes me that any discussion of scoring should be based on what the
score is intended to measure.   In many of today's contests, it seems to me
that some of the things that are now being measured don't have much to do
with radio skills.    For example, the ability to stay awake for 48 hours
is just one such "skill" that seems to have a dominating effect on
scores.   Or the ability to travel to a nearby location where the points
flow more freely.

Similarly, as noted recently, there are lots of QSOs which are awarded 3
points but seem much easier to complete than other 2 or 1 point QSOs.

So, what exactly is the scoring system supposed to be measuring?   My
personal preference is that it should measure radio skills, and the person
with the best score should be considered the best at use of such skills.
But there's many other possibilities.

73,
/Jack de K3FIV





On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 4:22 PM, Bob Kupps <n6bk at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Hi and thanks for all the comments.
>
> I am persuaded by the arguments in favor of retaining the 2 point rule for
> NA. In fact those arguments apply to other continents as well and IMO
> applying the 2 point rule equally across the globe for all
> intra-continental Qs would seem to go a long way toward reducing by half
> the penalty for crossing over arbitrary continental boundaries (3-2 vs 3-1).
>
> Would this rule change be an affront to anyone's sense of good
> sportsmanship and fair play?
>
> 73 Bob
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>