My take on what the contest is:
Intended to be single op at one radio for as much of the contest as
possible.
Multi op -- Not intended to be one radio with operators running shifts, but
to have one op at a radio for much of the contest, hence why multi-op is
only multi-2.
Spotting? Its treated as another op. Its no longer just one op, but one op
with help, which makes it a multiop entry. Since there is no Multi one,
they must now be a multi two. Make sense? --Mike, WV2ZOW
On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 11:52 AM, W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu@w0mu.com> wrote:
> Reclassifying SO using packet to a completely different class make no
> sense. If you want to remove packet form NA QP I am all for it.
>
> What is the reasoning behind allowing packet in M2? If you want a "clean"
> boys and their radios contest then dump the packet.
>
> Dumping single ops that chose to run packet into another class when those
> people dominate the entries is just wrong.
>
> I am still waiting for a reasonable well thought out and reasoned answer
> why SOA does not exist. Because we did it for 30 years and this is what we
> did live with it is a poor response. Why are we disenfranchising the
> majority of the people that are in the wrong M2 class?
>
> SOA with unlimited band changes would be a huge rush and sounds like a ton
> of fun to me to chase mults all over and having to decide if that is more
> important than running. To each their own.
>
> M2 entries comprise around 1 to 2 percent of the entries and get their own
> class. People that comprise about 10 percent of the contest get
> reclassified.
>
> W0MU
>
>
>
>
>
> On 12/15/2016 7:50 AM, Jim Stahl via CQ-Contest wrote:
>
>> I don’t have much of a dog in this fight, as I personally like classic
>> single operator, no assistance operating.
>>
>> There is one downside in the current rules, however: the 10 minute on a
>> band limitation on M2’s severely limits their ability to move and be moved.
>> Since the best way to get mults (and a few extra QSOs) is often to move
>> people, this rule takes this option out of the game for these stations.
>>
>> Perhaps the 10 minute rule might be waived for M2 stations with only a
>> single operator, i.e. those using spotting?
>>
>>
>> 73 - Jim K8MR
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Dec 14, 2016, at 7:28 PM, Mike Smith VE9AA <ve9aa@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>> de Mike VE9AA
>>>
>>> I do contests mostly UNassisted. I like it this way. The only ones I
>>> (grundingly) do assisted are the handful of ones, mostly Euro based that
>>> make no distinction between assisted and non. (no sense letting others
>>> get
>>> ahead of me needlessly if it's something everyone has access to) Oh, and
>>> the
>>> occasional State QSO party (same thing, no distinction)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I like the NAQP just the way it is, as I know ALL single ops are
>>> UNassisted
>>> !
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> For the highest scorers, the NAQP is mostly a central and west coast
>>> game,
>>> mostly because of the time of day this starts (so I get a taste of how
>>> they
>>> feel in a lot of the other contests (CQWW for example) but I don't let
>>> that
>>> dissuade me from playing all the same. I work my guts out to spin the
>>> dial,
>>> use my ears and make my 100,150 or 200k while the Westerners enjoy the
>>> higher bands open much longer. At this stage in the solar cycle there
>>> will
>>> be no 10m, little or no 15m and very little 20m.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It is what it is, and scores ebb and flow with the solar cycle. I can
>>> look
>>> back to the 90's to see what I've done, always knowing I was finding
>>> mults
>>> myself, because that's the way this particular contest is setup. I don't
>>> enter contests that don't interest me (perhaps due to particulars in the
>>> rules pertaining to mults.) Most of us know what I am referring to ;-)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Please don't change anything !
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Mike VE9AA proudly spinning the VFO in "NB"...CU in the Big Stew this
>>> weekend...also UNassisted...no Assisted SO class in this one either !
>>>
>>> N2IC sez:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Mike, (he's talking to W0MU)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> These are the same rules that the NAQP has had since packet hit the radar
>>> screen, almost 30 years ago. Nothing in the rules has changed this year
>>> pertaining to your pet peeves. There were no "decisions" made this year,
>>> just extremely minor tweaks and clarifications. Why the sudden awakening
>>> now
>>> ? Where have you been hiding ?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Where did you get the wild notion "SOA with 5 times more participants" ?
>>> Name me one significant contest that has 5 times as many SOA participants
>>> than SO participants ?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Glad I'm not in charge of any major contests. Wouldn't want to be
>>> accused of
>>> bullying because I won't change a rule that has been in effect for 30
>>> years,
>>> while interest in the contest continues to grow, year-by-year.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You are welcome to participate, or not. You can even take your money
>>> where
>>> your opinion is, by not subscribing to the NCJ.
>>>
>>> 73,
>>>
>>> Steve, N2IC
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
|