Rex J Maner wrote:
>
> Quacks
> Follows is a reason to have a Grid Sq. contest. The ARRL is a DX contest
> not VHF let the rovers do what ever they desire on VHF but try to Load
> a Tri-Bander on the P/U and go running around making Q's. If there are
> to be changes to the rules for the ARRL DX test it might be a good idea
> to get something to the DX guys, during the contest isn't time to try to
> EXPLAIN the new requirements, this hurts everyone and especially the Big
> Signal. I've had to explain the rules of the AF Contest the last 2 years
> to thousands of guys and then 2 QSO's later go thru all of it again. If
> changes are going to happen and I guess they are, get the word out more
> than 3 or 4 weeks prior to the test.
>
> Rex K7QQ
>
As usual Quack Quack has words of wisdom. Someone else mentioned
it, but I really like the idea of grid squares, ( based on the
geographical center of each square ) and tie that to the scoring
on a distance factor. And I certainly think some thought should
be given to making each State a multiplier. With all due respect,
I don't think the US population of hams should be considered a
"sitting duck pond" for guys to just sit and reap
thousands of points from a country which may have only 1 station
active.
In other words, let's level the playing field a little.
That should certainly rewrite the record books, and should take
some of the advantages of sitting just over a continental line (
PJ ) away. I would guess that PJ will not longer be the dominent
winner.
And of course, as QQ pointed out, this doesn't have to be done
right now.
Let's study it, modify if necessary, and have it in place for
next year.
73
ed
--
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST@contesting.com
|