[ILQSO] Results

[kf9tl at att.net]

I mentioned that too last year Bud, something to even the playing field.
While it is rewarding to earn the extra points there are limited "golden" 4
co corners accessible or favorable.  I'm all for testing of man and machine
as you describe.  Since there are more 3 co corners that 4, could 3 be set
as a max (or2)?  The 4 co would still be more desirable to work as he'd be
worth 4 to the other operators.  Now if only we could get a high and low
power Portable category.....

73
Mark Orey  KF9TL   

-----Original Message-----
From: ilqso-bounces at mailman.qth.net [mailto:ilqso-bounces at mailman.qth.net]
On Behalf Of w9dy at juno.com
Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2008 1:55 PM
To: ilqso at mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [ILQSO] Results

While we are on the thread about disparities in scores, let me again mount
my soap box regarding the scores from multicorner portable spots.  

 
Having operated from two, three and four corner spots over the years, I have
always felt a little guilty as I turned in my four corner score because I
knew it was next to impossible to beat that from a lesser
numbered corner no matter how good the operator or station.  .   
 
We need to apply an equalizing multiplier to these scores.   After all, 
the contest, in my opinion should be a competition based on operator and
equipment abilities,  not the rarity of the location.   
 
I'd be interested in hearing comments from the rest of us on their
feeling toward equalizing multipliers for the 2,3 and 4 corner scores.   
 
It would be a lot easier than what we'll soon be doing on our forms 1040.
 
 
 
73,  
 
Bud Frohardt    W9DY
_______________________________________________
ILQSO mailing list
ILQSO at mailman.qth.net
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/ilqso
ILQP webpage:
http://www.w9awe.org/ILQP.html
list administrator is Danny NG9R
for list problems contact ng9r at arrl.net