[VHFcontesting] Goal-Based Contest Scoring

[Kenneth E. Harker]

On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 10:19:54AM -0400, n1mu-vhf at rochester.rr.com wrote:
> Folks,
> 
> I still feel like there would be some merit to a "Goal-Based" scoring
> method.
> 
> See:
> http://tom.2ub.org/docs/N1MU_Proposed_VHF_Contest_Rules.html

My comments:

* The number one, overriding goal of radio contests should be "competition."
  In the ideal world, the winner of the contest should be the best-designed
  station operated by the highest performing operator(s).  The goal of the 
  contest should be to support that result.  Once you start explicitly making 
  it important to achieve other goals, like "camaraderie" or "activity," even 
  if they are otherwise laudable in other circumstances, the value of 
  contesting as a _sport_ is diminished.  It's a subtle emotional 
  distinction, perhaps, but one that I think is a major difference between 
  VHF contest culture (delining log submissions in the past decade) and HF 
  contest culture (increasing log submission in the past decade.)

* This approach basically multiplies the number of winners in the contest 
  by four.  The ARRL already awards certificates to like 1/3 of all contest
  entrants as it is.  In some categories (like SO/P) you'd probably have 
  80% or more of the entrants winning something.

* The Activity Values and Technology Values you propose are bound to be 
  very controversial.  Just looking at it myself, I don't understand why
  a 3.4GHz QSO would be worth only 75% as much "activity value" as a 2.3 
  GHz QSO - aren't 2.3 GHz stations a lot more common?  And why is a 432 
  MHz phone QSO worth twice the "technology" value as a 432 MHz CW QSO?
  That's just bizarre.  Yes, I know, they could all be adjusted - but 
  however it is adjusted, it will always be controversial.

* If it is important to support these four goals, why not have a separate
  contest for each goal with scoring systems designed for it?  One of the 
  drawbacks to VHF contesting today is that too many of the contests 
  are just like each other - there's nowhere near the variety you have in
  HF contesting.  Gets kinda boring, no?

* I've always thought that one of the ways to encourage activity could be
  to have a contest that didn't involve the bands above 432 MHz.  If a 
  contest was only 50-144-222-432, it might attract new contesters who 
  are currently intimidated by going head-to-head with 10 band stations.
  In fact, a 12 hour, 4 band, SO-only contest on a Saturday in like late 
  May could be really fun - maybe a VHF NAQP...

-- 
Kenneth E. Harker WM5R
kenharker at kenharker.com
http://www.kenharker.com/