[UK-CONTEST] Feb 144 UKAC

[David G3YYD]

Humm

So if I spend £1M moving to a top class VHF QTH then that is OK. But if 
I spend £1000 on building a higher ERP station then that is not OK and 
should be penalised. A better QTH is worth a lot more points than going 
from a single Yagi to a 4 Yagi stack at a poor QTH.

Extending Bob's argument we should have different categories for height 
above sea level as well as power and ERP levels.

Extending it further why not have so many categories that everyone is a 
winner.... Not so difficult with so few entries.

If CC on 80m is so popular and entries are growing year by year, it 
shows there are plenty of contesters wanting to take part in CC contests 
irrespective of their placing in the results.  Yet those same contesters 
have deserted UKAC which is in decline. Conclusion is that contesters 
find 80m CC a much more attractive contest to take part in than UKAC. No 
point in tinkering with the scoring system when the basic problem is it 
is not attractive to the majority of contesters. So surely the questions 
to ask is how can UKAC be made attractive to CC contesters? Fiddling 
with the scoring system will not achieve that. It needs a complete 
rethink with lateral thinking not just more of the same ideas. I do not 
see any real lateral thinking on how to make UKAC more attractive on 
this reflector.

Incidentally on a personal not I do not operate UKAC but I do operate 
CC. Quite frankly I find UKAC boring with little in the way of 
intellectual challenge unlike CC.

David G3YYD

On 06/02/2010 17:02, Rob Harrison wrote:
> You'll accumulate more pts if you run 400w, than if you run, 100 or 10, so
> the "best" man won't win. However if you use erp, and/or have more seperate
> sections, you may be best of that bunch.
>
> 73
>
> Bob G8HGN
>
> Off to see the rugby now
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ray James"<gm4cxm at yahoo.co.uk>
> To:<UK-Contest at contesting.com>
> Sent: Saturday, February 06, 2010 4:55 PM
> Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] Feb 144 UKAC
>
>
>    
>>
>> If we make the contacts the squares will come along at the same time so
>> they don't need to be a multiplier to be important.
>> The emphasis would purely be on working as many stations as possible and
>> top down scores based on how many Km you could accumulate in 2.5 hours.
>> No skewing effect from external sources, may the best man really win.
>> Seemples :-)
>>
>> 73 Ray GM4CXM
>>
>>
>>
>> --- On Sat, 6/2/10, G3RIR<g3rir at yahoo.com>  wrote:
>>
>>      
>>>   Ray,
>>>
>>> My point is that I like the challenge of searching for the
>>> additional squares and surely that aspect of operating is worth
>>> something? Maybe it should not be worth enough to skew the result in
>>> favour of someone working 28000km over 35000km total but the challenge of
>>> the search for the multipliers has to be worth a little? Perhaps
>>> excluding all adjacent squares as multipliers might be an option? And of
>>> course working GM on any VHF and Up band is a real challenge from my
>>> modest site and always gives me a buzz.
>>>
>>> 73
>>>
>>> Neil, G3RIR
>>>        
>>      
>>> M2 skews the results away from excellent performance to
>>> favour those who can pick up the most squares.
>>> A strange logic that competitors believe someone who worked
>>> 28,000Km has outperformed someone who worked 35,000km.
>>>
>>> 73 Ray GM4CXM
>>>        
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> UK-Contest mailing list
>> UK-Contest at contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest
>>
>>      
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> UK-Contest mailing list
> UK-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest
>