Ya know, I was leaning to thinking about the assisted issue, but Tor firmly
planted me back into the "nay" column. The last thing we need in a
semi-sane contest like NAQP are packet pileups - more than what we have.
73 Rich NN3W
On Mon, Aug 9, 2021 at 1:07 PM RT Clay <rt_clay@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> I was asked what will change for the unassisted ops if an assisted class
> is added. I would expect that if an assisted class was added, close to 50%
> of the entrants would go assisted. That would make a big change on the
> dynamics of the contest:
>
> 1. Cluster pileups on rare mults. In NAQP even with a small station (I
> operated NAQP for years with only wires...a tribander at 50' would have
> been huge) you can still find mults and not have to fight through big
> pileups. This will make the contest less friendly for small stations. Even
> small stations can run in NAQP. If there are many assisted stations who are
> always calling the rarer mults first, the run rate may actually go down for
> small stations in more common states.
> 2. The whole strategy of band choice and mult finding would change.
> Because mults count per-band and NAQP is short, finding mults on multiple
> bands is a big deal. This weekend I found 10 open to the east coast later
> in the afternoon (2200z?). Very few were there. Later 15 was open to W9. A
> ZF moved me from 15 to 10 when nobody else was on 10. Finding these
> openings is part of what makes NAQP fun and challenging. With the reverse
> beacon network these openings would be discovered instantly, and unassisted
> ops would find them easier as well (it is easier to see 10 is open when a
> whole bunch of assisted ops are there). You can argue that this would be
> better and allow more qsos to be make, but it would certainly take out part
> of what makes the contest interesting and makes skill count.
>
> #2 is also why unassisted stations should not be allowed to look at their
> own callsign reports in reverse beacon during the contest. Hint: want to
> see if 10 is open? Check the beacon band 28.200-300...
>
> BTW ncjweb.com now has results available all the way back to the first
> NAQP (1991). NAQP has grown quite a bit in popularity so I don't see what
> needs "fixing" about it. High scorers now are making twice as many qsos as
> in the 1990's.
>
> 73 Tor N4OGW
> On Monday, August 9, 2021, 6:45:15 AM CDT, Kevan Nason <
> knason00@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> It was after several trips to a multi-multi that the assisted bug bit me
> hard, so I understand the “old school” viewpoint. Although most all my
> operation now is Assisted, I welcome the NAQP to keep unassisted skills
> sharp. That’s because, IMHO, Assisted ops don’t generally score high
> without also being good runners and having strong S&P skills. Let’s keep
> NAQP’s unassisted. Besides, there are evidently several people who like the
> rules as they are. (Many have forgotten it, but there is word called
> “compromise”. Not every contest has to try and please everyone.)
>
>
>
> Wait until participation goes down before changing the rules? You think
> people would come back in after leaving? That doesn’t sound like a good
> idea to me. We want to encourage more new contesters, not discourage the
> old ones that are still here. If anything, keeping old folks around who
> want to be assisted is actually a reason to change the rules. It would be
> good to keep them happy. On the other hand, changing to allow Assisted
> might drive some out. Experience says people are more likely to stick
> around and keep griping if things stay the same; as opposed to more likely
> to leave if they don't like a change that was forced on them. Let's leave
> it alone and keep more people contesting.
>
>
>
> As a separate issue, people talk a lot about abusing power limits in the
> NAQP’s. I noticed (and later post-contest read a comment from a second ham
> that he too experienced the same thing) that within a minute or two of
> showing up CQing on a new band I would have a rush of people calling me. It
> was remarkably similar to being fresh RBN meat in a contest that allows
> spotting. After the initial rush, things settled out to normal rates. Just
> as it does in a contest where people are using spots. What’s up with that?
> It happened often enough to be suspicious. Rhetorical question, but don’t
> people with well known calls read the rules? It was suggested it was SO2R
> operating. Both the other ham and I thought we were found way too quickly
> for that to be plausible. Occam's Razor suggests spotting assistance was
> being used by too many people in this contest.
>
>
> Art, are you implying people who like assistance are wimps?
>
>
> Kevan N4XL
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|