I expect one of the goals (among other things) of the NAQP is to serve as a
training ground for new ops: to learn to run for example. But - they also
need to learn how to find stations to work *without using the cluster*!
That seems to be a very important skill that every operator should know how
to do - spin the dial to find stations to work. This also forces running
stations to ID on a regular basis - they cannot expect the cluster to do
that for them.
I enjoy operating without having to deal with the cluster fed pileups. One
can run with minimal pileups. One can S&P without having to duke it out
with 50 other stations who just clicked on a spot the moment a station was
spotted.
This is the flavour of the contest - lets leave it the way it is!
Tom - VE3CX
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
This
email has been sent from a virus-free computer protected by Avast.
www.avast.com
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
<#DDB4FAA8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
On Sun, Jan 17, 2016 at 12:53 AM, Kelly Taylor <ve4xt@mymts.net> wrote:
> Every contest has its own quirks likely purposefully built in to create
> its own feel. WAE has QTCs, SS has a long exchange and work 'em once only,
> WW has everybody works everybody but some equals are more equal than
> others, Sprint has the QSY rule. CX rewards ops who use vintage equipment.
>
> NAQP, it seems, wants to celebrate the unassisted single op. Bravo!
>
> If all the contests had the same rules, all the contests would be the same.
>
> Sometimes, the key to happiness is not trying to alter every environment
> to suit particular tastes, but rather being able to find joy in
> environments as they are.
>
> I find complaints about popular contests' rules are, at times, like
> someone walking into a Szechuan restaurant and saying "What, you don't make
> cheeseburgers?"
>
> I, for one, enjoy a contest without as many crazed, RBN- and spot-driven
> pileups. But I'm not going to complain about contests that have them,
> either.
>
> 73, Kelly
> ve4xt
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Jan 16, 2016, at 3:24 PM, Pete Smith N4ZR <pete.n4zr@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > NAQP does not allow use of spotting assistance on any mode, and
> single-ops using assistance are reclassified as Multi-two. Then, *because
> they areMulti-Two, they are required to adhere by the 10-minute band change
> rule*. When I asked one of the organizers, he first said that they had
> never thought about it, but after a couple of back-and-forths, he affirmed
> that is indeed how it works.
> >
> > Why should we care? First of all, because penalizing assisted single-op
> participants in this way is a classic example of unintended consequences.
> The band change rule was intended to prevent elaborate octopus arrangments
> competing with genuine two transmitter multis, not to limit single-op band
> changes. It prevents assisted entrants from participating in one of the
> most fun aspects of NAQP, moving stations (or being moved) to maximize the
> distribution of rare mults. For people who operate assisted in other
> contests, it prevents them from practicing high-rate assisted
> search-and-pounce skills unless they are willing to accept a heavy
> handicapso far as NAQP competition is concerned.
> >
> > It's hard for me to understand why NAQP would cling to this antiquated
> situation. The other three contests reclassifying assisted single-op as
> multi-op were ARRL 10, ARRL 160, andIARU HF. All three have now adopted
> Single Op Unlimited as a legitimate competitive class. When will NAQP get
> rid of this counter-productive anachronism?
> >
> > --
> >
> > 73, Pete N4ZR
> > Download the new N1MM Logger+ at
> > <http://N1MM.hamdocs.com>. Check
> > out the Reverse Beacon Network at
> > <http://reversebeacon.net>, now
> > spotting RTTY activity worldwide.
> > For spots, please use your favorite
> > "retail" DX cluster.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|