CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] NAQP Rules

To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] NAQP Rules
From: Steve London <n2icarrl@gmail.com>
Reply-to: n2ic@arrl.net
Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2014 18:44:25 -0700
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
On 01/12/2014 05:35 PM, Aldewey@aol.com wrote:
NAQP CW continues to be my overall favorite contest.  I like it  BECAUSE
the amplifiers are off and the spotting network and skimmer is not  in play
(i.e. except for multi-2 and , perhaps, cheaters).

Let's be a little more careful about the word "cheaters" and the NAQP. A number of times, I had 3-4 stations calling simultaneously, all exactly zero-beat to each other. That is a "signature" of clicking on a spot. None of these callers were what I would characterize as top-tier, or even top-50 NAQP competitors. They were simply folks getting on the air in a fun contest for a few hours. They probably think that every contest has an assisted category.

Here are my arguments for adding an assisted category to the NAQP (resent from my NAQP 3830 posting):

1) Every major contest now has an assisted category.
2) With the recent change by the ARRL, every ARRL contest now has an assisted
category beginning this year.
3) To nearly everyone but the insiders, the NAQP is an ARRL contest. It is
actually an NCJ contest, but the NCJ is published by the ARRL.
4) I had many times when 3-4 stations called me, exactly zero-beat to each
other. Had to be assisted guys clicking on spots. So it's happening anyway. No,
not by top-tier guys.
5) Reclassifying assisted guys to M/2 is not good for the health of the
contest.
6) It will hurt no one to add an assisted category.

73,
Steve, N2IC
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

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