> However, there have been plenty who have
> called SO2R an "unfair advantage."
The case for "unfair advantage" is based on others not
knowing the circumstances under which someone else
competed.
The solution is to assure that all major factors that
impact score are revealed in the results. Contestants
are then easiliy able to decide who they were actually
competing against. Of course, the overall top scoring
stations would be those who have maximized all of
those factors.
What are those factors? Here's a list that I came up
with.
Station ERP (RF output + Antenna Gain)
Operating Time (man-minutes, for multi-op)
Station Location
Station Operator Count (use of spotting net = +1 Op?)
Station simultaneous transceiver count
Active Band Count (where applicable)
QSO Automation Assistance Y/N (CQer, Memory Keyer,
etc)
If you knew this about each participant...you could
easily compare your results to other similarly
equipped stations. Are there any other factors that I
may have overlooked?
Of course, once these revelations become a
commonplace, more minor issues could come to
play...but this is a good start.
Ev, W2EV
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|