OK, so the changes are that schools will be identifiable, multi-ops will be
identifiable, guys who feel they need to use packet will be identifiable,
and all those who want to do as they've always done, can do so. Hmmm.....
I'm having trouble finding a problem with this change.
My expectation is that now that the multi-single category is fixed (other
contest sponsors take note) there will be a lot more multi-ops in SS. It
will definitely be more fun now that they can do everything that a single op
can do.
The school guys seem to get special joy out of running their school
competition simultaneously with SS.
The packet guys have always felt out of place entering multi-single since
they really weren't.
The only difference, aside from the logging program issues, are that there
will be increased activity. I just hope they decide to get on for the usual
Sunday afternoon doldrums period.
73,
# B N5NJ 73 NTX
Robert E. Naumann
N5NJ / V26O
Plano, TX USA
ex KR2J, V26RN, W6V, WA2OVE
----- Original Message -----
From: Greg Becker <na2n@ifam.com>
To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 1999 3:14 PM
Subject: RE: [CQ-Contest] Sweepstakes Rules Changes
>
>
> > Previously, the precedence sent during Sweepstakes indicated
> > power - A, B,
> > and Q. The exchange sent during Sweepstakes will be changed
> > to indicate the
> > category in which you are operating: Q = Single Op QRP, A =
> > Single Op low
> > Power, B = Single Op High Power, U = Single Op Unlimited, S =
> > School Club,
> > and M = Multi-Op. All of this will be laid out when the
> > rules announcement
> > is published in the October issue of QST.
>
> Wow.
>
> Those of you who know me know that I am not often at a loss for words, but
> it's almost all I can do to sit here and just shake my head in amazement.
>
> WHOSE IDEA WAS THIS?????????? OCTOBER??? FOR A NOVEMBER
CONTEST?!?!?!?!?!?!
>
> Given the current and very-well-known state of contest logging, was NO
> thought given to the fact that this MAJOR, RADICAL change in the contest
> format would affect THOUSANDS of contesters, not to mention EVERY supplier
> of software? And what about... nevermind.
>
> Once again, we see the effects of a poorly conceived and ill-considered
> change in contest rules by the ARRL. I'd be disappointed, but I'm kinda
> getting used to it...
>
> __
> Greg Becker JD PhD NA2N na2n@ifam.com
> Ideas For American Manufacturers
> SW, Rondout #343 F&AM - Hendrick Hudson #875 F&AM
>
>
> --
> CQ-Contest on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
> Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST@contesting.com
>
--
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST@contesting.com
|