In the NAQP mults are a big deal since they count on every band. It can pay off
to look for openings at unusual times (like Es late at night on 10m). If a
large fraction of the stations were using spotting networks, I think it would
make the contest less interesting. Yes, more unusual band openings would be
found and passed on to everyone via the spotting network, but there would be
less incentive and strategy involved in finding them. It would also affect
those choosing not to use the spotting network, because assisted stations would
ask them to qsy to other bands.
Multi stations can currently use spotting, but they also can't do an unlimited
number of qsy's to different bands.
So please leave the rules as they currently are.
TorN4OGW
On Wednesday, December 14, 2016 12:49 PM, Richard F DiDonna NN3W
<richnn3w@gmail.com> wrote:
I have to say that I'm humored by the comments on packet. We're not
talking about CQWW which drives the juices of DXers who love to collect
entity counters. We're not talking about ARRL 10 or ARRL 160 which gets
operators to focus efforts on challenging bands.
We're talking about a 12 hour QSO party that entails 50 states, about a
dozen Canadian provinces, and maybe 12 DXCC entities in a given event.
Not every contest has to have 150 categories and overlays - Single Op,
Low Power, Rookie, TB Wires, Single band 40.
Either operate in it or don't. I do and I find NAQP to be a great
little event.
73 Rich NN3W
On 12/14/2016 10:22 AM, Kelly Taylor wrote:
> 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
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|