Hi,
Thanks to Matt and John, and others on the comments on "3 Minimum" entries.
Several have pointed out that this change would penalize an entrant for the
activities or lack therof of "others".
Matt suggested possibly making it a certificate award only, but others note
that this infringes on the folks who sponsor plaques in limiting their effort
at recognition.
And, who amoung us has not taken a shot at an award where participation is
low, or a class that has been ignored, in an effort to pick off an easy one.
The other notes are mostly in the vein above.
For all the above, I suggest we make no change here, and remove the issue
from the table.
Thanks, Mike, NE4S
"Matt Lee, K4AQ" <Matt at hiwaay.net> wrote:
"I also propose that Ed's comment of needing 3 entries in a category/class
be met for an award to be issued be adopted. This may trim the total award
set a bit."
I agree having 3 entries minimum for a plaque award.
I disagree requiring 3 entries for a certificate award.
--
Matt Lee, K4AQ
Atlanta, Georgia
> -----Original Message-----
> From: secc-bounces at contesting.com
> [mailto:secc-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Michael Condon
> Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2005 18:26
> To: SECC
> Subject: [SECC] GQP changes
>
> All,
> I have had some feedback that the basic rules are OK. I
> have put in a couple of items that were commented here. We
> can refine more as we go.
>
> On the start and end times from, I would like to hear from
> the rover guys on the item by Gary WB4SQ about a 2 PM local
> start time. The rovers carry the ball for GQP. Their great
> cooperation/competition really make a lot of our counties
> available and their comments are requested.
>
> On another topic,
> I propose that we allow three types of entries, SSB, CW,
> and Mixed.
> The awards for these entries can be discussed further, but
> as a base I propose that in place of plaques for the new
> entries, certificates be issued for the appropriate awards as
> are now issued.
> I also propose that Ed's comment of needing 3 entries in a
> category/class be met for an award to be issued be adopted.
> This may trim the total award set a bit.
>
> This allows us to make the change, and fill in as time goes
> on for plaques sponsors. It also allows the current plaque
> sponsors to keep their great support, or to change it as they
> may wish.
>
> There may be some backfill on the rules to comb down this
> change, but lets hear your comments.
>
> I do not have a problem with the 1 vs 2 points for SSB vs
> CW... although a line of reason would reverse the situation
> based on the bandwidth/sensitivity advantage of CW...
>
> My approach is to make our event open to many forms of
> participation.
> This is why I think the use of spots by all is good, let's
> use all the toys we have.
>
> Thanks to Hal for posting on SEDXC...
>
> Thanks,
> Mike, NE4S
>
>
>
> Please use ne4s at iham.us as my address.
> Be well,
> Thanks
>
> ---------------------------------
_______________________________________________
SECC mailing list
SECC at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/secc
Please use ne4s at iham.us as my address.
Be well,
Thanks
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Shopping
Find Great Deals on Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping
|