Now this is pretty reasonable and simple. Simple is good. Works for me.
73
Al, VE1AL
_______________
At 01:04 PM 10/21/2006, you wrote:
>Following N4ZR's admonition, I'll re-label this notion as DREAMING.
>
>A scoring system for CQ WW DX contests that I think could really
>work is idealistically simple:
>
>QSO's in YOUR country 1 point
>
>QSO's EVERYWHERE else 3 points
>
>
>Encourages activity: (this would be good)
>
>Removes flagrant biases tied to continental boundaries
>
>No longer penalizes Asians who must work someone thousands of
>kilometers distant for one point (maybe encourages our JA friends to
>participate again?)
>
>Eliminates unfair advantages that Zone 33, 35, 36, 09, 10 have today
>
>Maybe encourages more expeditions to rarely-on Caribbean and Central
>American countries?
>
>
>Dreaming.
>
>Meanwhile, I'll look for you all from Hawaii KH7Q
> (or is that KH7 Qure??) on 20 meters next weekend.
>Sometimes there's maybe more about contests than points? I'll
>contemplate that while making the drive along Oahu's beautiful north shore.
>
>Vy 73
>
>Jim Neiger N6TJ
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Jimk8mr@aol.com
> To: n6tj@sbcglobal.net ; CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2006 7:56 AM
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Real Time Scoreboards
>
>
>
> In a message dated 10/20/2006 8:09:10 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> n6tj@sbcglobal.net writes:
>
> Why not REALLY improve the contest by seriously considering
> remedying the
> ancient, unfair, archaic "points per QSO vs. your continent" nonsense.
>
>
>
> There are some things in the world, like the USA Electoral
> College and the CQWW 1-2-3 point system, that would never be
> designed into a new system, but with which we seem to be stuck
> forever. So it appears voters in Wyoming and Delaware and
> contesters in Zone 9 and Zone 33 will continue to be more equal
> than the rest of us.
>
> Unlike elections, however, in ham radio contests there need not
> be only one winner. There can be multiple winners based on
> multiple sets of rules. Just take the raw material of what a person
> worked (from a Cabrillo log) , and score it in several ways.
>
> Obviously, it would still be scored in the "CQWW Classic" mode,
> using today's rules.
>
> From there use one's imagination. My suggestion is a scoring
> system where points are based on zone to zone distances. The point
> values would not need not be integers, so 1.6 or 2.226 points for a
> qso would be possible and normal. For example, something like
>
> QSO Points = 1 + (Distance/10000)
>
> where Distance is the zone center to zone center distance in kilometers.
>
> So qso points would vary from 1 (your own zone) to about 3 (at
> the antipodes). Score it up with the current multiplier structure,
> and you have the results of the "CQWW 21st Century" competition.
>
> Having done the work of preparing logs for processing, dupe/bust
> checking, etc., there would be very little extra work to produce an
> alternate set of scores, with results published online.
>
> Watsa OMs?
>
>
> 73 - Jim K8MR
>_______________________________________________
>CQ-Contest mailing list
>CQ-Contest@contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
>
>
>--
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>Version: 7.1.408 / Virus Database: 268.13.9/490 - Release Date: 10/20/2006
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.408 / Virus Database: 268.13.9/490 - Release Date: 10/20/2006
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|