You could keep the zero point QSOs for in country, like we have now, and count
them only for zone and country mults. Having a standard point value for out of
country QSOs seems to work OK for the ARRL DX contest.
73s John AA5JG
--- On Sat, 12/5/09, Dick Green WC1M <wc1m73@gmail.com> wrote:
> From: Dick Green WC1M <wc1m73@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Is it time to reevaluate CQWW Scoring Rules?
> To: "'John Geiger'" <aa5jg@yahoo.com>, "'David Kopacz'"
> <david.kopacz@aspwebhosting.com>, cq-contest@contesting.com, wc1m73@gmail.com
> Date: Saturday, December 5, 2009, 12:02 AM
> Without extra credit for distance,
> there's less incentive to work the world.
> Countries and continents with large population would have
> less incentive to
> work outside their borders, except to get individual mults.
> I don't think it
> would be as interesting a contest. CQ WW was clearly
> designed to reward
> participants for working stations outside their country and
> continent.
>
> 73, Dick WC1M
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: John Geiger [mailto:aa5jg@yahoo.com]
> > Sent: Saturday, December 05, 2009 12:38 AM
> > To: 'David Kopacz'; cq-contest@contesting.com;
> wc1m73@gmail.com
> > Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Is it time to reevaluate
> CQWW Scoring Rules?
> >
> > Or just 2 points per QSO, regardless of distance,
> continent, or country.
> >
> > 73s John AA5JG
> >
> > --- On Fri, 12/4/09, Dick Green WC1M <wc1m73@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > From: Dick Green WC1M <wc1m73@gmail.com>
> > > Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Is it time to
> reevaluate CQWW Scoring Rules?
> > > To: "'David Kopacz'" <david.kopacz@aspwebhosting.com>,
> cq-
> > contest@contesting.com
> > > Date: Friday, December 4, 2009, 7:40 PM
> > > Anamolies like this are inevitable
> > > with a continent-based scoring system. I
> > > think the only way to fix it is to use a scheme
> based on
> > > actual distance,
> > > such as one QSO point per 1000 kilometers of
> distance, or
> > > something similar.
> > > It would be relatively simple to implement such a
> system
> > > with today's
> > > computer-based logging and log-checking
> programs.
> > >
> > > 73, Dick WC1M
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: David Kopacz [mailto:david.kopacz@aspwebhosting.com]
> > > > Sent: Friday, December 04, 2009 12:33 PM
> > > > To: cq-contest@contesting.com
> > > > Subject: [CQ-Contest] Is it time to
> reevaluate CQWW
> > > Scoring Rules?
> > > >
> > > > What's wrong with this picture?
> > > >
> > > > EF8M(RD3AF)
> > > 7374 131 409
> > > 48 11,888,100
> > > > V47NT(N2NT)
> > > 7402 135 457
> > > 48 11,231,424
> > > >
> > > > Let's see, V47NT has more Q's more zones
> and
> > > significantly more
> > > > countries, but a lower score!
> > > >
> > > > So basically, he out-performed EF8M in all
> aspects and
> > > still loses.
> > > >
> > > > I think it's time for an evaluation of the
> scoring
> > > rules.
> > > >
> > > > What do you think?
> > > >
> > > > David ~ KY1V
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > CQ-Contest mailing list
> > > CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> > > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|