[CQ-Contest] CQWW popularity from EUR Perspective: data
jamesdavidcain at gmail.com
Wed Dec 23 12:16:26 EST 2015
The first two words of my post were "Just imagine." It was a thought experiment, nothing more.
I am old enough, just barely, to remember when the ARRL International DX Competition had QSO quotas: six contacts per DXCC country (1960s). It was a DX contest then, not a run contest.
It's always a thrill for me to work a VK, a ZL, or anybody that far away. I am absolutely sure that I have never worked six VKs in a contest. Maybe you could teach the code to some kangaroos and get them licensed.
Every change to a rule has an opposite reaction...
Offering USA multipliers to USA stations would mean you (USA) would
concentrate on a clean sweep and not chase DX - we have enough trouble getting
USA stations to point to VK in most contests without an added disincentive.
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year
TrentVK4TS PO Box 275 Mooloolaba 4557 0408497550
Please note I no longer use the WIA email address where possible owing to it
blocking emails from sites such as VK Logger and ARRL.
> From: jamesdavidcain at gmail.com
> To: cq-contest at contesting.com
> Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2015 16:22:46 +0000
> Subject: [CQ-Contest] CQWW popularity from EUR Perspective: data
> >On Mon,12/21/2015 11:09 AM, kr2q at optimum.net wrote:
> >Remember, that there is an incentive for EU's to work each other on the low
> bands...to a much greater degree than for USA types to work each other (one
> zone and done).
> >>That's a PERFECT example of the problem with current contest scoring rules.
> >>73, Jim K9YC
> Just imagine ... if the ARRL DX Contest counted U.S. states and Canadian
> provinces as multipliers for U.S. and Canadian participants. Even if the
> contacts counted only one point, or even zero points.
More information about the CQ-Contest