CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] NAQP CW - Rules Changes Needed

To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] NAQP CW - Rules Changes Needed
From: Pete Smith N4ZR <pete.n4zr@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2021 15:11:00 -0400
List-post: <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
But Jim, my point is that there's no reason to punish those of us who, for whatever reason, prefer to operate assisted.  And that's what the current rules do, by eliminating any separate (from M/2) single-op assisted class.  I am not calling for merging assisted and non-assisted.  Experience over the last 20 years in many other contests has proven that separate categories do *not* mean that assisted will drive unassisted out of the top spots - quite the contrary.  Thanks for the QSO - I found you from a spot.

73, Pete N4ZR
Check out the new Reverse Beacon Network
web server at <http://beta.reversebeacon.net>.
For spots, please use your favorite
"retail" DX cluster.

On 8/8/2021 2:27 PM, Jim Brown wrote:
On 8/8/2021 5:21 AM, Pete Smith N4ZR wrote:
It is unnecessary, and downright punitive, to push assisted single ops into Multi-2, instead of creating a separate single op assisted category. Many of us, with limited antennas (see HOAs) can only S&P. Without assistance, operating becomes a deadly boring sequence of tune, copy, type the call in, be told it's a dupe, and repeat.

Hi Pete,

I STRONGLY disagree. The joys of NAQP are the Low Power limit and the prohibition of cluster use.

Thanks for the QSO yesterday.

73, Jim K9YC
_______________________________________________
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>