Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+NAQP\s+Revised\s+Rules\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+NAQP\s+Revised\s+Rules\s*$/: 50 ]

Total 50 documents matching your query.

21. Re: [CQ-Contest] NAQP Revised Rules (score: 1): Author: Steve London <n2icarrl@gmail.com>; Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 13:50:19 -0700; Mike, These are the same rules that the NAQP has had since packet hit the radar screen, almost 30 years ago. Nothing in the rules has changed this year pertaining to your pet peeves. There were no "d; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2016-12/msg00224.html (20,270 bytes)
22. Re: [CQ-Contest] NAQP Revised Rules (score: 1): Author: Jamie WW3S <ww3s@zoominternet.net>; Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 18:05:09 -0500; I read it as in Jan 2015 there was around 100 entries in the multi two class and of those around 18 appeared to be "true" multi ops , the rest ( around 82 or 5 times more) were assisted...I think his; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2016-12/msg00226.html (13,492 bytes)
23. Re: [CQ-Contest] NAQP Revised Rules (score: 1): Author: "Mike Smith VE9AA" <ve9aa@nbnet.nb.ca>; Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 20:28:29 -0400; de Mike VE9AA I do contests mostly UNassisted. I like it this way. The only ones I (grundingly) do assisted are the handful of ones, mostly Euro based that make no distinction between assisted and no; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2016-12/msg00227.html (13,148 bytes)
24. Re: [CQ-Contest] NAQP Revised Rules (score: 1): Author: W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu@w0mu.com>; Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 17:23:20 -0700; To take this one step further I would like to challenge the Organizers to show us when the M2 class has actually been dominated by M2 entries. I went back and found the following: Jan 2016 SSB 130 M2; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2016-12/msg00228.html (14,301 bytes)
25. Re: [CQ-Contest] NAQP Revised Rules (score: 1): Author: Jim Stahl via CQ-Contest <cq-contest@contesting.com>; Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 09:50:11 -0500; I dont have much of a dog in this fight, as I personally like classic single operator, no assistance operating. There is one downside in the current rules, however: the 10 minute on a band limitation; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2016-12/msg00230.html (12,364 bytes)
26. Re: [CQ-Contest] NAQP Revised Rules (score: 1): Author: W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu@w0mu.com>; Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 09:52:59 -0700; Reclassifying SO using packet to a completely different class make no sense. If you want to remove packet form NA QP I am all for it. What is the reasoning behind allowing packet in M2? If you want a; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2016-12/msg00232.html (13,196 bytes)
27. Re: [CQ-Contest] NAQP Revised Rules (score: 1): Author: Michael Clarson <wv2zow@gmail.com>; Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 14:34:38 -0500; My take on what the contest is: Intended to be single op at one radio for as much of the contest as possible. Multi op -- Not intended to be one radio with operators running shifts, but to have one o; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2016-12/msg00233.html (16,010 bytes)
28. Re: [CQ-Contest] NAQP Revised Rules (score: 1): Author: Jim Brown <k9yc@audiosystemsgroup.com>; Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 11:21:08 -0800; But that completely changes the nature of NAQP. One of the great things about NAQP is that it IS limited to 100W and discourages cluster use. That allows smaller stations to have a lot more fun, beca; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2016-12/msg00234.html (10,404 bytes)
29. [CQ-Contest] NAQP Revised Rules (score: 1): Author: ac0w@charter.net; Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 16:42:56 -0600; I know this is dangerous being the NAQP SSB Manager and responding but felt some clarification is needed with the numbers of M-2 stations listed in the post below. While the numbers used are correct; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2016-12/msg00236.html (10,389 bytes)
30. Re: [CQ-Contest] NAQP Revised Rules (score: 1): Author: W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu@w0mu.com>; Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 18:31:24 -0700; The guys who started NAQP many years ago established rules that made it the somewhat unique set of contests that it is, and most participants like it the way it is. The statistics you posted yesterda; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2016-12/msg00238.html (9,731 bytes)
31. Re: [CQ-Contest] NAQP Revised Rules (score: 1): Author: W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu@w0mu.com>; Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 18:37:59 -0700; There is nothing dangerous in having a reasonable discussion. I will take your word that what you said is true. It makes no sense to me why you would not list those that helped Maybe in future listin; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2016-12/msg00239.html (11,737 bytes)
32. Re: [CQ-Contest] NAQP Revised Rules (score: 1): Author: W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu@w0mu.com>; Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 19:00:12 -0700; Actually SO can run SO2R and make as many band changes as they wish. It is only M2 that is hampered by the the 10 minute rule. M2 is clearly running two radios on different bands with probably two or; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2016-12/msg00240.html (16,765 bytes)
33. Re: [CQ-Contest] NAQP Revised Rules (score: 1): Author: David Gilbert <xdavid@cis-broadband.com>; Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 23:14:10 -0700; Not sure why this is so difficult to understand. As I see it, the focus of NAQP has always been as a single op activity ... low power and simple structure (I could list several facets of the contest; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2016-12/msg00241.html (11,402 bytes)
34. Re: [CQ-Contest] NAQP Revised Rules (score: 1): Author: ".. VE5ZX" <ve5zx@hotmail.com>; Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2016 15:39:12 +0000; Personally I can't wait until the old guard who wants contesting to remain pure like the old days and avoid incorporating new technologies and processes in contests with bizarre rule changes is repla; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2016-12/msg00243.html (10,589 bytes)
35. Re: [CQ-Contest] NAQP Revised Rules (score: 1): Author: AE1P <ae1p@arrl.net>; Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2016 11:02:43 -0500; Amen!! Thx, Dave. 73, Neil, AE1P On 12/16/2016 1:14 AM, David Gilbert wrote: Not sure why this is so difficult to understand. As I see it, the focus of NAQP has always been as a single op activity ..; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2016-12/msg00244.html (10,526 bytes)
36. Re: [CQ-Contest] NAQP Revised Rules (score: 1): Author: W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu@w0mu.com>; Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2016 09:20:31 -0700; Ok maybe one of the originating NA QP organizers will answer this. If packet was not desired then why do we have a class that allows it? It would have been easy to avoid from the start. Just not allo; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2016-12/msg00245.html (11,784 bytes)
37. Re: [CQ-Contest] NAQP Revised Rules (score: 1): Author: Christian Schneider <prickler.schneider@t-online.de>; Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2016 18:53:47 +0100; Am 16.12.2016 um 16:39 schrieb .. VE5ZX: Now I will crawl back into my hole before the guns start blazing Well immunized against any comment with differing opinion... Thinking about marathon runners; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2016-12/msg00247.html (10,821 bytes)
38. Re: [CQ-Contest] NAQP Revised Rules (score: 1): Author: Steve London <n2icarrl@gmail.com>; Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2016 11:03:31 -0700; I can't answer your specific questions, but I can quote from the original rules, in the Jan/Feb 1986 NCJ: Entry Classification: Single-operator and multi-operator unlimited. Multi-operator stations m; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2016-12/msg00248.html (12,777 bytes)
39. Re: [CQ-Contest] NAQP Revised Rules (score: 1): Author: "Ed Sawyer" <sawyered@earthlink.net>; Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2016 14:07:05 -0500; I think the points have been made on this topic. Can we move on? If some people on this reflector would make as many Qs in contests as postings, I think contest activity would be up by 25%! Happy Hol; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2016-12/msg00250.html (8,533 bytes)
40. Re: [CQ-Contest] NAQP Revised Rules (score: 1): Author: W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu@w0mu.com>; Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2016 12:08:05 -0700; Thanks Steve. It really doesn't address the packet issue at all other than to say it is allowed in multi. It doesn't support the claim that they never wanted packet etc. I can't recall and do not hav; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2016-12/msg00251.html (17,813 bytes)

Current List: 21 - 40
Page: [1] [2] [3]