Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[SECC\]\s+GQP\s+changes\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[SECC\]\s+GQP\s+changes\s*$/: 27 ]

Total 27 documents matching your query.

21. [SECC] GQP changes (score: 1): Author: jpryor at uga.edu (Jay Pryor); Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 08:21:24 -0500; Plaques should be awarded even if there is only one entry in a category. As has been pointed out, a contestant should not be penalized just because he/she has the only entry in a category. In fact it; /archives//html/SECC/2005-12/msg00075.html (10,333 bytes)
22. [SECC] GQP changes (score: 1): Author: aldermant at alltel.net (Tommy); Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 08:36:38 -0500; Savage, et al, You have a good point about requiring a minimum number of participants per class/category. And I agree with changing the minimum number of participants to setting a minimum number of Q; /archives//html/SECC/2005-12/msg00076.html (11,223 bytes)
23. [SECC] GQP changes (score: 1): Author: SavageBR at aol.com (SavageBR@aol.com); Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 09:54:36 EST; Personally, I think going with SSB, CW, and Mixed categories WILL attract more participants in the GQP, certainly not decrease the participation. I guess I was miss understood. I agree 100% with addi; /archives//html/SECC/2005-12/msg00079.html (8,053 bytes)
24. [SECC] GQP changes (score: 1): Author: mrcne4s at yahoo.com (Michael Condon); Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 07:05:45 -0800 (PST); Hi, Thanks to Matt and John, and others on the comments on "3 Minimum" entries. Several have pointed out that this change would penalize an entrant for the activities or lack therof of "others". Matt; /archives//html/SECC/2005-12/msg00080.html (11,187 bytes)
25. [SECC] GQP changes (score: 1): Author: mrcne4s at yahoo.com (Michael Condon); Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 07:22:22 -0800 (PST); Bruce, and all, Posposing that certificates be used for new categories where no sponsor exists at present is meant as a starting point. Certificates would be a default award, and as plaque sponsors a; /archives//html/SECC/2005-12/msg00081.html (9,398 bytes)
26. [SECC] GQP changes (score: 1): Author: mrcne4s at yahoo.com (Michael Condon); Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 07:31:35 -0800 (PST); A bit more... I do think that CW only QRP recognitions are really good goals, as Bruce notes. Thanks Bruce.. Mike Personally, I think going with SSB, CW, and Mixed categories WILL attract more partic; /archives//html/SECC/2005-12/msg00083.html (8,775 bytes)
27. [SECC] GQP changes (score: 1): Author: aldermant at alltel.net (Tommy); Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 12:50:39 -0500; Great Bruce! Adding these additional categories and providing plaques for them will increase plaque distribution from its present level of 12 plaques to 30 plaques. I have assured Mike that this addi; /archives//html/SECC/2005-12/msg00088.html (9,196 bytes)

Current List: 21 - 27
Page: [1] [2]