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

[Jimk8mr at aol.com]

No tinkering with a 1-2-3 point system will yield a fair result for all,  
whether for zone 14 vs 33, 8 vs 9, or east Asia/Oceania vs the rest of the  
world.
 
There is no reason in the 21st century to use integer point values. That  
went away when scoring paper logs went away. 
 
QSO points should be awarded based on distance. Specifically,
 
QSO POINTS = 1 + (Distance / K).
 
Distance could be between zones, between countries (excluding same country  
QSOs), or between individual stations. It is just matter of what is 
practical to  compute.
 
K = a constant, with the value chosen to give the desired value to  long 
distance QSOs.
 
For distances in Km, K = 5000 would yield QSO point values from 1 (same  
zone) to approximately 5 (QSO to the antipodes). A zone 14 to zone 15 QSO 
would  be about the same as a zone 14 to zone 33 QSO, about 1.2 QSO points. 
 
5000 is merely a suggestion as a starting point. Other values could be used 
 to give the desired credit to long distance QSOs, or to maintain an 
approximate  3 points for EU-NA qsos.
 
If we quit limiting ourselves to integer values for QSO points, a  lot of 
equitable solutions become possible.
 
 
 
73  -  Jim   K8MR
 
 
 
 
 
In a message dated 11/28/2013 11:53:08 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
kim.ostman at tut.fi writes:

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...

_______________________________________________