Well, just as one could lie about using spotting, one could also lie about
power. We're going to drive ourselves nuts, and create a lot of ill will,
focusing too much on cheating. You have to figure human nature being what it
is, some will cheat, most won't, in a competition where it's all about
reputation and enjoyment, and, yes, rules have to be enforced as much as is
feasible, but we can't obsess about them.
NAQP has a certain vibe .. it's Low Power, spotting is discouraged through the
use of a handicap, but not prohibited, resulting in a contest that is maybe a
bit more *casual* than WW/ARRL DX etc. It's fine this way, even if the
<EXPLETIVE DELETED> manager won't give a "Subarctic propagation sucks, and we
need a KW just to work W7" exception to the low power rule :) They are
*forcing* me to go to VP9 and drink a bunch of Dark & Stormies just to have a
chance!
73
Steve KL7SB
-----Original Message-----
From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Kelly
Taylor
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2016 6:23 AM
To: W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu@w0mu.com>
Cc: CQ Contest <cq-contest@contesting.com>; Tom Haavisto <kamham69@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] NAQP Revised Rules
I don’t mind it when a contest decides to not be like every other.
In some ways, packet is a scourge. Especially when used by lazy ops who put too
much faith in the quality of spots and start dumping their calls onto a
frequency without listening. Hang on, Mr. BY1, why is your signal strongest
when I point my antennas at Jamaica?????
Note: I am NOT accusing anyone in this thread of that behaviour. Merely
pointing out it exists. Nor am I complaining about packet’s existence or
disparaging those who use it wisely.
If the rules say to be a single op you can’t use packet, my guess is more
people obey than not. And if there are some who don’t, well, it’s only one
contest out of hundreds. No big deal.
Has NAQP decided discouraging packet attracts more people than it turns away?
Perhaps.
The ultimate protest is to vote with your feet. If that does or does not result
in a large enough drop in participation to force a rules change, either way,
the majority has spoken.
73, kelly, ve4xt
> On Dec 13, 2016, at 10:04 PM, W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu@w0mu.com> wrote:
>
> Working mults and using packet is a different skill set. I know a lot of
> people that like it. Some like to work just mults, etc. To each their own.
> Spinning the dial doesn't teach me anything.
>
> Packet is allowed in this contest . If you use it and you are a single op
> with one radio you get classified into a class of multi operator with two
> transmitters. Once again they can do whatever they want.
>
> If you want to not include packet then remove it for M2 as well or not.
> Apparently this contest needs packet but just not for Single Ops. A bit of
> hypocrisy here don't you think?
>
> What other contest dumps single ops into a M2 class because they use packet
> that has been in contesting for how many years now.
>
> Congrats on having more participants that the contest can handle, no need to
> find new ways to keep people interested. <Sarcasm off> Back under my rock.
>
> I am willing to be that many use packet anyway and turn in SO scores or they
> don't turn in scores.
>
> W0MU
>
>
>
>
>
> On 12/13/2016 8:22 PM, Tom Haavisto wrote:
>> There was some discussion about this issue some months ago here on
>> CQ-Contest. The consensus was - no packet for single ops, and it seems like
>> a great option. *Every* contest does not need packet for single ops - just
>> need to learn to spin the dial, or call CQ (a lot) to find those elusive
>> mults! Consider it a chance to improve your contesting skills.
>>
>> Not sure why this (continuation) of the rules for single ops will suddenly
>> discourage folks from getting on, as participation seems quite good with the
>> current rules.
>>
>> Next thing you know, single ops with one radio will complain about folks who
>> have two radios/do SO2R, and state they need to be in a separate class
>> :<evil grin>.
>>
>> Tom - VE3CX
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 7:51 PM, W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu@w0mu.com
>> <mailto:w0mu@w0mu.com>> wrote:
>>
>> So you either operate SO no assistance or you get stuffed into a
>> M2? There is no M1? Why the bias against packet? So If I want
>> to use packet and chase mults all over I get dumped into a class
>> where there are people using two transmitters at the same time?
>>
>> Explain to me how these changes or rules encourage people to get
>> on? What am I missing here?
>>
>> W0MU
>>
>>
>>
>> On 12/13/2016 1:55 PM, Chris Hurlbut wrote:
>>
>> The North American QSO Party rules have been revised!
>>
>> Current rules found here: http://ncjweb.com/NAQP-Rules.pdf
>> <http://ncjweb.com/NAQP-Rules.pdf>
>>
>> Please take a moment to read them as there are some
>> significant changes.
>>
>> Including, but not limited to:
>> - Expanded multiplier list (Certain stations out east, rejoice!)
>> - Off time rule clarification.
>> - Output power clarification
>> - M/2 classification clarification
>> - Log entry deadline changed to 5 days
>>
>> Please pass this info along to any and all reflectors that may
>> find it
>> useful.
>>
>> Contest logging software authors, please update your NAQP
>> multiplier lists
>> where applicable.
>>
>> NAQP CW is January 14th, SSB is January 21st, and RTTY is
>> February 25th!
>> See you there!
>>
>> -Chris KL9A
>> _______________________________________________
>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>> CQ-Contest@contesting.com <mailto:CQ-Contest@contesting.com>
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>> <http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>> CQ-Contest@contesting.com <mailto:CQ-Contest@contesting.com>
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>> <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
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|