[CQ-Contest] The two/four-point rule in WPX

Wed Apr 9 08:43:21 EDT 2014

Thanks Randy,

I appreciate getting solid historical data on this. The exception probably
served a good purpose 52 years ago when it was introduced for improved
activity. 

In my opinion it has outlived the original purpose and become a parochial
relic that stains "worldwide" contests. Many European operators in
particular feel this way (if they know about the exception), but most don't
want to voice it on a public forum.

I'm still looking for direct answers to these two questions:

1. Why are the 2/4-point exceptions in force in 2014? Historical precedent
is not a justification.

2. If the basic scoring system is flawed, how does an artificial "fix" that
favors only a select few make it better?

With so much talk about the need for fair play, how about it?

73
Kim OH6KZP

-----Original Message-----
From: Randy Thompson K5ZD [mailto:k5zd at charter.net] 
Sent: 9. huhtikuuta 2014 14:45
To: 'Kim Östman'; cq-contest at contesting.com
Subject: RE: [CQ-Contest] The two/four-point rule in WPX

>From the CQ WW Handbook, January 1999, by Bob Cox, K3EST

Brief History of the CQ WW Contest

"... [1962] was when the North American two point rule
came into existence. With such a rule, it was hoped that more
activity would occur in the Caribbean and Central America
countries. All these changes were brought into the rules by Frank,
W1WY."

This rule has definitely accomplished its purpose by motivating a lot of
contest expeditions to the Caribbean.  I don't see this rule changing any
time soon.

Randy, K5ZD

> -----Original Message-----
> From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of
> Kim Östman
> Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2014 4:41 AM
> To: cq-contest at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] The two/four-point rule in WPX
> 
> Dear Mike,
> 
> > We are playing under the same rules.
> 
> If station A gets 5000 points and station B gets 2500 points for the same
> number of next-door out-of-country QSOs within their own continent, they
> are BY DEFINITION not playing under the same rules.
> 
> > Would you prefer less participation from the USA?
> 
> I don't see the relevance of this point. Ed N1UR spelled it out nicely
> and I
> agree: the 2/4 point exception is for all practical purposes meaningless
> for U.S. stations.
> 
> > You just don't like certain portions of the rules. Right?
> 
> I don't like an exception to the rules that privileges only a select few,
> and I've made this point ad nauseam by now. If a contest sponsor goes
> down the road of rules exceptions to "fix" a bigger problem, then there
> should be a suitable exception for everybody. Otherwise they need to be
> removed.
> 
> I participate in contests from OH because it's fun, and I have no
> illusions about placing well from here. This is a consequence of our
> difficult geographical/geomagnetic location and the continental-divide
> scoring system.
> But I certainly don't lobby for special scoring exceptions to be
> given/maintained for OH, or threaten to withdraw participation if that
> doesn't happen.
> 
> 73
> Kim OH6KZP
> 
> 
>   On 4/8/2014 12:13 PM, Kim Östman wrote:
> > Hi Ed,
> >
> > Thanks for putting thought into this! A few comments:
> >
> >> This whole issue is really just about Carib and VE and KL7 stations
> >> since the change of 1 vs 2 points for USA stations is not material
> >> since there just are not enough Carib and VE sand KL7 tations to work
> >> to matter.  For the Carib and VE and KL7  stations it does matter
> >> that every US station is 2 points or 4 points vs half that value.
> > I completely agree.
> >
> >
> >> NA and SA are hardly dominating this contest despite the rules
> discussed.
> > Please consider also the numbers I posted for 2005-2013. But in any
> > case, NA/SA dominance is not my point. My point is that some NA
> > stations are unfairly favored through an exception to the rules,
> > instead of everybody playing with the same fair-play rules and simply
> > accepting the
> consequences
> > of location.
> >
> >
> >> Yes, if a competitive Carib station shows up, EU will not beat them.
> >> But
> > is
> >> there a DX contest where EU would ever beat a competitive Carib
> station?
> > Yes. For the most recent example that sparked this thread, you can
> > take a look at this year's WPX SSB SOAB HP top-3 on 3830 and consider
> > the effect
> of
> > the NA 2/4 vs. SA+EU 1/3 QSO-point exception.
> >
> >
> >> Like us in the US, the competition in EU should be about EU.
> > If the competition in NA should then similarly be about NA, why is
> > there a rules exception that favors certain NA stations?
> >
> >
> >> The World competition is about desired mult and DX country
> > locations.always has
> >> been always will be.  And this is not a US issue whatsoever.  That
> >> rule difference would be lost in the rounding on my score.  It is a
> >> big impact
> > on
> >> Carib stations.  But there or not, for most categories, its not going
> >> to insure EU winning the category.
> > I agree about location. However, my point is not about ensuring that
> > EU or anybody wins anything, it's about enabling fair competition
> > through fair play.
> >
> > I mean, this is really simple: Everybody should play under the same
> > rules, and if that means the continental divides, then just accept the
> > consequences, i.e., you can only win from certain locations.
> >
> > Personally, I'm fine losing to a northern AF 3-point station if I'm
> working
> > from 1-point southern EU. I accept that I have no chance whatsoever
> > here from OH land. It's OK because it affects everybody the same, and
> > that is
> the
> > essence of fair play.
> >
> > => BUT, if the contest sponsor thinks the continental divide is
> > unfair,
> what
> > kind of logic makes it OK to attempt a "fix" by favoring just a few NA
> > stations and screwing others over by doing so?
> >
> > 73
> > Kim OH6KZP
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest