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.

41. Re: [CQ-Contest] NAQP Revised Rules (score: 1): Author: David Gilbert <xdavid@cis-broadband.com>; Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2016 12:36:49 -0700; First, a disclaimer. I'm not at all against packet in general. I've entered packet categories several times in the past and expect to do so again. But, it seems obvious to me (and it should to you) t; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2016-12/msg00252.html (13,319 bytes)
42. Re: [CQ-Contest] NAQP Revised Rules (score: 1): Author: Tom Hellem <tom.hellem@gmail.com>; Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2016 08:47:42 -0700; I have subscribed to the "boy and his radio" idea since I started ham radio in 1975, and have never been much of a fan of packet. I have always likened it to spoon feeding. However, I have a question; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2016-12/msg00254.html (15,264 bytes)
43. Re: [CQ-Contest] NAQP Revised Rules (score: 1): Author: Jim Brown <k9yc@audiosystemsgroup.com>; Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2016 10:45:04 -0800; Packet spots generates runs that make it tough for stations with weaker signals to get through. This makes it more exciting for the running station, but quite frustrating for the weaker stations. Whe; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2016-12/msg00256.html (10,697 bytes)
44. Re: [CQ-Contest] NAQP Revised Rules (score: 1): Author: "Mike Smith VE9AA" <ve9aa@nbnet.nb.ca>; Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2016 15:21:38 -0400; Because Tom, it changes the whole dynamic and mechanics of the contest. Right now, rare sections will be discovered by all single ops by spinning the VFO and using their ears. If there were to be a S; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2016-12/msg00257.html (9,652 bytes)
45. Re: [CQ-Contest] NAQP Revised Rules (score: 1): Author: Ken K6MR <k6mr@outlook.com>; Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2016 20:49:25 +0000; You know, we could negate the effect of packet if we just moved to Sprint QSY rules. (ducks) Ken K6MR Because Tom, it changes the whole dynamic and mechanics of the contest. Right now, rare sections; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2016-12/msg00259.html (11,200 bytes)
46. Re: [CQ-Contest] NAQP Revised Rules (score: 1): Author: Tom Hellem <tom.hellem@gmail.com>; Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2016 14:11:47 -0700; Mike and Jim, I see your points. However, being the good operators that you are, I can't imagine short-lived packet pileups preventing you from working those mults. When I come across a pileup like t; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2016-12/msg00260.html (12,261 bytes)
47. Re: [CQ-Contest] NAQP Revised Rules (score: 1): Author: Tom Haavisto <kamham69@gmail.com>; Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2016 21:03:50 -0500; The cluster has been around for a long time, so there is not a need to "test what will happen". Rather than mess with the NAQP, perhaps a new contest could be set up. Users must NOT use their VFO - c; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2016-12/msg00261.html (12,762 bytes)
48. Re: [CQ-Contest] NAQP Revised Rules (score: 1): Author: W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu@w0mu.com>; Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2016 14:32:35 -0700; So how does that affect you as a single op? You are not competing against SOA. How is your reward removed because I worked someone using packet? I can still use packet just like M2. I can use 1500 wa; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2016-12/msg00262.html (13,162 bytes)
49. Re: [CQ-Contest] NAQP Revised Rules (score: 1): Author: Jim Stahl via CQ-Contest <cq-contest@contesting.com>; Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2016 22:02:44 -0500; Mike, An SOA in NAQP would not affect things all that much. Unlike SS, there are essentially an unlimited number of multipliers in NAQP, and therefore a clean sweep is not a relevant concept. Finding; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2016-12/msg00263.html (9,849 bytes)
50. Re: [CQ-Contest] NAQP Revised Rules (score: 1): Author: Alan Dewey via CQ-Contest <cq-contest@contesting.com>; Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2016 09:59:50 -0500; It seems to me this question has been asked and answered. The majority prefer NAQP to remain as it is with the focus on Single Operator non-assisted operation. I get weary of the argument that those; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2016-12/msg00265.html (15,049 bytes)

Current List: 41 - 50
Page: [1] [2] [3]