Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[SECC\]\s+GQP\s+Changes\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[SECC\]\s+GQP\s+Changes\s*$/: 27 ]

Total 27 documents matching your query.

1. [SECC] GQP Changes (score: 1): Author: nq4i at contesting.com (Rick Dougherty NQ4I); Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2007 10:36:04 -0500; I want to weigh in here on this discussion...I am currently in India and don't have the best internet...so here goes...the band changes for multipliers is to stimulate the home stations activity..;pl; /archives//html/SECC/2007-12/msg00033.html (7,444 bytes)
2. [SECC] GQP Changes (score: 1): Author: k4bai at worldnet.att.net (John Laney); Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2007 11:20:01 -0500; With regard to Rick's comments, making additional mutlipliers does not add the ability to move a station from CW to SSB or from one band to another. You already have that. They count for QSO points a; /archives//html/SECC/2007-12/msg00034.html (7,796 bytes)
3. [SECC] GQP Changes (score: 1): Author: gregpotter at charter.net (gregpotter at charter.net); Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2007 11:25:55 -0800; As a newcomer and rover in the last GA QSO party in recent years, I thought everything went pretty well. My biggest followers were the county hunters and they made up most of the pile up as I started; /archives//html/SECC/2007-12/msg00035.html (9,293 bytes)
4. [SECC] GQP Changes (score: 1): Author: nq4i at contesting.com (Rick Dougherty NQ4I); Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2007 19:05:12 -0500; Hi John..the problem was nobody has any incentive to qsy...just for a few points they will qsy?? Not going to happen...we had the cw stations and ssb stations try to pass qso during last years test a; /archives//html/SECC/2007-12/msg00042.html (9,399 bytes)
5. [SECC] GQP Changes (score: 1): Author: ku8e at bellsouth.net (ku8e); Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 08:50:09 -0500; I think the situation that Rick is describing is happening because in their MM operation, they work a lot of stations who are casual participants that aren't all that interested in QSYing to another; /archives//html/SECC/2007-12/msg00046.html (7,242 bytes)
6. [SECC] GQP Changes (score: 1): Author: nq4i at contesting.com (Rick Dougherty NQ4I); Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 09:08:36 -0400; Hi All....after doing a fairly serious effort in the GQP, I would like to suggest the following changes: 1. For Ga stations, the number of multipliers would be per band i.e. cw and and ssb would all; /archives//html/SECC/2007-04/msg00145.html (7,949 bytes)
7. [SECC] GQP Changes (score: 1): Author: ku8e at bellsouth.net (ku8e at bellsouth.net); Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 10:00:16 -0500; Rick has some good ideas... I think the multiplers per band would work out good. I would count them just once per band and get rid of them by mode. I would also like to see the contest start earlier; /archives//html/SECC/2007-04/msg00146.html (7,438 bytes)
8. [SECC] GQP Changes (score: 1): Author: wb4sq at yahoo.com (Gary McConville); Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 08:35:07 -0700 (PDT); I agree with Rick about the mults. GA working GA stations should be treated as just another state. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the; /archives//html/SECC/2007-04/msg00147.html (9,026 bytes)
9. [SECC] GQP Changes (score: 1): Author: mrcne4s at yahoo.com (Michael Condon); Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 08:45:07 -0700 (PDT); There is a note in the soapbox listing about the Sunday ending being late. I would go for the same time for both days, and move the end earlier. Rovers can go home earlier. 8 AM start and 8 PM (GA Ti; /archives//html/SECC/2007-04/msg00148.html (9,331 bytes)
10. [SECC] GQP Changes (score: 1): Author: k4sb at comcast.net (Ed); Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 15:51:49 +0000; 1. For Ga stations, the number of multipliers would be per band i.e. cw and and ssb would all be available to work...this would greatly increase activity...our current limit of 63 mults would be repl; /archives//html/SECC/2007-04/msg00149.html (7,333 bytes)
11. [SECC] GQP Changes (score: 1): Author: k4bai at worldnet.att.net (John Laney); Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 13:39:25 -0400; I am reluctant to disagree with one of my heroes, NQ4I, but I oppose multipliers per band. To the best of my recollection (and I have participated in all of them), there is no state QSO Party that co; /archives//html/SECC/2007-04/msg00150.html (10,723 bytes)
12. [SECC] GQP Changes (score: 1): Author: greyeagl at bellsouth.net (Gordon); Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 14:08:23 -0400; Good thinking Rick! I am in favor of expanding the multiplier list for GA stations. For instance, I think allowing GA counties as multipliers would greatly enhance the scoring. However, I would limit; /archives//html/SECC/2007-04/msg00152.html (11,103 bytes)
13. [SECC] GQP Changes (score: 1): Author: k4bai at worldnet.att.net (John Laney); Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 14:54:59 -0400; I am opposed to limiting power to less than the legal limit. It reduces the number of possible QSOs. It would make it impossible for many DX station and also for west coast stations to make enough QS; /archives//html/SECC/2007-04/msg00153.html (7,630 bytes)
14. [SECC] GQP Changes (score: 1): Author: k4sb at comcast.net (Ed); Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 19:17:53 +0000; -- Well, according to many surveys, people either use Writelog or N1MM. We might have a chance of MM rewriting the software, but as John pointed out, Writelog would require a major modification, and; /archives//html/SECC/2007-04/msg00155.html (7,819 bytes)
15. [SECC] GQP Changes (score: 1): Author: SavageBR at aol.com (SavageBR at aol.com); Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 16:55:43 EDT; separate awards for each power level is sufficient to encourage QRP and LP stations to compete. 73, John, K4BAI. I agree. When operating QRP for example (which is what I did this year in the GQP) One; /archives//html/SECC/2007-04/msg00157.html (7,411 bytes)
16. [SECC] GQP Changes (score: 1): Author: nq4i at contesting.com (Rick Dougherty NQ4I); Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 18:44:51 -0400; Ed...I am not advocating the WARC bands...merely the fact that cw and ssb are SEPARATE bands and the mults would count for each mode as well....then my op's can have some inner-station competition on; /archives//html/SECC/2007-04/msg00159.html (8,395 bytes)
17. [SECC] GQP changes (score: 1): Author: mrcne4s at yahoo.com (Michael Condon); Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 15:25:46 -0800 (PST); All, I have had some feedback that the basic rules are OK. I have put in a couple of items that were commented here. We can refine more as we go. On the start and end times from, I would like to hear; /archives//html/SECC/2005-12/msg00069.html (8,719 bytes)
18. [SECC] GQP changes (score: 1): Author: Matt at hiwaay.net (Matt Lee, K4AQ); Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 19:46:33 -0500; "I also propose that Ed's comment of needing 3 entries in a category/class be met for an award to be issued be adopted. This may trim the total award set a bit." I agree having 3 entries minimum for; /archives//html/SECC/2005-12/msg00070.html (10,027 bytes)
19. [SECC] GQP changes (score: 1): Author: aa4lr at arrl.net (Bill Coleman); Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 20:21:51 -0500; I've never fully understood the logic behind the late start on Saturday, and the early start on Sunday. For those that regularly attend christian worship services, this cuts out a lot of operating ti; /archives//html/SECC/2005-12/msg00071.html (8,953 bytes)
20. [SECC] GQP changes (score: 1): Author: SavageBR at aol.com (SavageBR@aol.com); Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 21:56:28 EST; I propose that we allow three types of entries, SSB, CW, and Mixed. The awards for these entries can be discussed further, but as a base I propose that in place of plaques for the new entries, certif; /archives//html/SECC/2005-12/msg00072.html (8,997 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2]