There is nothing dangerous in having a reasonable discussion.
I will take your word that what you said is true. It makes no sense to
me why you would not list those that helped
Maybe in future listings SO entries could be pointed out?
So what is the reasoning for allowing packet in M2 at all? If it is
discouraged for SO why would it not be discouraged for M2? What is good
for the goose.........
Thanks for stepping up and sharing this data.
W0MU
On 12/15/2016 3:42 PM, ac0w@charter.net wrote:
I know this is dangerous being the NAQP SSB Manager and responding
but felt some clarification is needed with the numbers of M-2 stations
listed in the post below.
While the numbers used are correct for the published data, the
published data does not accurately list every true multi-op operation
in the Multi-two category. For some reason individuals submitting the
logs for multi-ops do not always list all the operators in the log
submission. Some people just forget to do that, some submissions the
participants do not want to be listed and some have unlicensed
individuals who are unsure about typing a name in the operators field.
Whatever the reason there are many more multi-ops in the Multi-two
category.
Looking at one SSB contest it appears the numbers of multi-op
stations to single-op assisted in the Multi-two category is closer to
60% / 40%, with 60% being the multi-operator stations.
Currently the majority of feedback I receive is people like the rules
as is and to not change. It may change in the future at which time we
will need to consider changes.
On a personal note, I personally like the differences between the
different contest I participate in. Each one has something different
that means I need to do something different in my operating or
strategy. It keeps it fun for me.
Bill
AC0W
NAQP SSB Manager
Message: 2
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 17:23:20 -0700
From: W0MU Mike Fatchett
To: Jamie WW3S , "cq-contest@contesting.com"
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] NAQP Revised Rules
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
To take this one step further I would like to challenge the
Organizers
to show us when the M2 class has actually been dominated by M2
entries.
I went back and found the following:
Jan 2016 SSB
130 M2 Entries
33 actual M2 participants
Participation of 25% M2
2016 Rtty Feb
74 M2 Entries
20 actual M2 participants
27 percent M2
Aug 2015 SSB
75 M2 Entries
29 actual M2 participants
38 percent M2
Aug 2015 CW
77 M2 Entries
13 actual M2 entries
16 percent M2
We have been doing it wrong for 30 years. No reason to change now and
recognize the MAJORITY in this class that are being forced into a
category they are not really participating in.
Shouldn't the argument made to either add SO A or dump M2 as M2 is
not
representative of the vast majority who are classified into it for
the
reasons unknown?
W0MU
_______________________________________________
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
|