CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] NAQP Revised Rules

To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] NAQP Revised Rules
From: David Gilbert <xdavid@cis-broadband.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2016 12:36:49 -0700
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>

First, a disclaimer. I'm not at all against packet in general. I've entered packet categories several times in the past and expect to do so again.

But, it seems obvious to me (and it should to you) that NAQP really wants to stay focused on single op, single radio participants without extra assistance. They apparently (I'm speculating here) don't want to encourage packet any more than they want to encourage multiple ops, thus the catch-all category of M/2. I completely understand that that makes no sense to you ... but I still don't understand why it doesn't. Seems kinda obvious to me.

It's not like there aren't dozens of other contests out there that more fully embrace packet. NAQP has it's own flavor ... one that makes it very popular just as it is.

Dave   AB7E


On 12/16/2016 9:20 AM, W0MU Mike Fatchett wrote:
Ok maybe one of the originating NA QP organizers will answer this. If packet was not desired then why do we have a class that allows it? It would have been easy to avoid from the start. Just not allow it.

I am not trying to broaden or change anything. I was curious why people that were actually SO were dumped into another category and subsequently not recognized for what they have done in the contest. To reclassify people that are a boy, a radio and his computer into a class where the winners are always multiple people, multiple radios and computers makes no sense to me. Why is that so hard for you to understand...........See how that works.

Instead of having any meaningful discussions about it, we have contest organizers that are afraid to post and defensive about it. Why? Is there something being hidden here?

Since nobody really wants to discuss anything I guess the thread is and was pointless. I guess I should have asked if the organizers were open to discussing the rule changes first. It would have saved a bunch of time and wasted bandwidth.

Good luck in the NA QP's

W0MU



On 12/15/2016 11:14 PM, David Gilbert wrote:

Not sure why this is so difficult to understand.

As I see it, the focus of NAQP has always been as a single op activity ... low power and simple structure (I could list several facets of the contest that support that claim). Packet pretty much disrupts that intent, so those who insist on using packet get relegated to a "secondary" multi-user category instead of adding another category to support an activity (packet) that the contest as originally configured probably preferred to avoid anyway.

You're trying to broaden the focus of this contest and make it like lots of others. Most NAQP ops seem to prefer that it doesn't. I'm not a huge fan of K0HB's incessant "a boy and his radio" mantra, but I think it applies pretty well in this case. In my opinion, that's a major appeal of the contest.

Dave   AB7E


_______________________________________________
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

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>