It takes great courage to enter this discussion, but let me try to raise a
few points:
[1] To say that working one's own country is a "zero point" QSO in the
WPX contest is incorrect. One gets multiplier points if it is a new prefix.
Thus these QSOs add plenty of points.
[2] To say that "no contest should have zero point QSOs," as a matter of
principle, is to say that there should be no DX contests. By "DX contest"
I mean contests where one works exclusively DX.
This is a matter of opinion, but I think that "DX contests," as a genre, are
a firmly established tradition of ham radio operating that goes beyond
contesting. In everyday operating we call "CQ DX." We put up antennas
that are optimized for DX. Hence, DX contests should continue to exist.
[3] Reformulating rules of major contests during the trough of the
sunspot cycle is a bad idea. Many problems that occur because of poor
propagation (lower activity, frequency congestion) simply "go away"
when propagation improves.
[4] Revisiting the rules about QSO point structures of major contests
periodically is a very good idea. There is no reason why long-standing
inequities cannot be addressed (examples: the CQ WW's 2-point rule for
North America only; the double-counting of low band multipliers in the
WAE; the 5-to-1 ratio of points for DX versus domestic QSOs in the CQ
160). The goal of any changes should be to remove barriers that
discourage participation in areas where there could potentially be high
activity, thus making the contest more enjoyable for all.
As a W9, given the choice between (a) keeping DX contests as they are
and accepting the fact that I will continue to get beat by every W1 with a
tower above 40 feet, and (b) changing the rules of DX contests so that
domestic QSOs count (and thus opening up the possibility of a non-W1
winning), I will choose the first alternative, because I simply like to work
DX.
-- Pat
N9RV
--
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST@contesting.com
|