[CQ-Contest] CQWW Madness

[Rudy Bakalov]

If Columbus had listened to all the skeptics we wouldn't even have CQWW, would we.

Allowing US stations to work other US stations, in addition to increasing the pool of multipliers, creates additional incentives that beyond a doubt will lead to more QSOs, higher scores, and (more importantly) more fun for hams in disadvantaged locations.  There is no speculation here.

It is true that we don't know if this change will level the field.  We can argue that now JA stations will work extra hard to work East Coast and South stations, while the EU will similarly work harder to reach beyond the East Coast. It is possible that scores will go up, but the winning locations will remain the same.

More QSOs and more Mults is likely to yield more fun and enjoyment for the participants. Isn't this the ultimate goal?

Rudy N2WQ 

Sent using a tiny keyboard.  Please excuse brevity, typos, or inappropriate autocorrect.


> On Jul 22, 2016, at 8:47 PM, Ken Claerbout <k4zw at verizon.net> wrote:
> 
> Rudy - I heard you the first time.  You are not listening to me.  Don't use the logs then.  But until someone can show the outcome of what these "reasonable proposals" do to the results, there will be very little for people to rally around and very little support for the change.  In fact, how do those who propose the change know it will produce the intended result?  They don't, it's just an assumption.
> 
> Ken        
>  
>  
> On 07/22/16, Rudy Bakalov<r_bakalov at yahoo.com> wrote:
>  
> Ken,
> 
> I repeat, your statement is flat out misrepresenting the data that's in the logs. You can't analyze data that's not there. You can argue as much as you want, but if logs contain close to zero percent US stations working other US stations, the analysis you demand is impossible and useless.
> 
> For the record, I only operate from VE3 and have no reason to object the current rules. However, I do believe that reasonable proposals are being made; I have a problem when such proposals are being pushed back with bogus pseudo-scientific arguments or "if it ain't broken don't fix it".
> 
> Rudy N2WQ
> 
> Sent using a tiny keyboard. Please excuse brevity, typos, or inappropriate autocorrect.
> 
> 
> > On Jul 22, 2016, at 8:09 PM, Ken Claerbout <k4zw at verizon.net> wrote:
> > 
> > No one suggesting a change has yet to show what their proposal does to scores, good and bad, using log data or whatever they choose Until that happens, these discussions are mostly a waste of time, and year after year as happens now, we'll have all this hand wringing and nothing will change.
>