Hi Mike,
The NAQPs have two operating categories, single op and multi-two. The use of
assistance (e.g. packet) is allowed in the multi-two category - I know of no
contest that bans assistance for a multi-op category. Given these two choices
in the current and historical NAQP rules means that single ops who use
assistance can either be treated as check logs, or classified in the only
category allowing assistance, M2. The contest managers have historically chosen
the latter.
To date, the contest managers have neither elected to allow assistance within
the existing single op category, nor create a separate single op assisted
category. However, you and others can certainly lobby for that change.
73 de Bruce, WA7BNM (bhorn@hornucopia.com)
a former NAQP manager
----- Original Message -----
From: "W0MU Mike Fatchett" <w0mu@w0mu.com>
To: "cq-contest" <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2016 8:30:31 AM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] NAQP Revised Rules
NAQP allows packet but not for SO. If going packet-less is so
wonderful, why is it allowed for Multi op?
Is having packet for M2 catering to a specif group or specific people?
If SO can go without why not M2?
How many M2 entries were actually from M2's and not SOA? There were
about 100 entries in Jan 2015 CW for M2. 18 appear to be real multi
ops. There are more SOA people in that class than actual M2 entries.
You have created a class for 1.5 percent of your players while ignoring
the fact that about 10 percent are in a class they should not be in. So
in the eyes of the organizers it is better to recognize the efforts of a
select few M2's while ignoring SOA with 5 times more participants?
Just like remote operation there are people that do not like packet. I
think everyone gets that part. There are people that dislike having to
dig QRP signals out of the mud and those that dislike QRO.
The organizers can do whatever they want and they have. The contest is
very popular. I was hoping that maybe those in charge would provide a
bit more detail into the decisions made and the pro's and con's that led
up to those decisions.
The majority have spoken? Was there a vote? How would you know if
another way is better or worse if it is never tried or even discussed
among the participants?
Interesting advertising for a contest....Hi my contest is great without
packet, but hey if you run multi, guess what you get to run packet.
What exactly does this say.
Game developers do this in games too. They attempt to push players to
play the game the way the developers think that you should play. What
happens is the players generally find a much different way to play the
game or reach a specific goals. The Devs will in many cases attempt to
derail the player found solutions and continue to force players down a
specific path, which ultimately leads to people leaving.
This list is becoming increasingly more difficult to discuss anything
on. There is no harm in discussions. While nobody is accusing anyone
of point and click and blind calling, it is obvious that is exactly what
was said. Single Op is no better than SOA. A power is no better than B
power. This is just a new form of bullying. Calling out people before
they even have a chance to express an opinion thus their interest in
responding. This is a cute political move and I have had posted denied
from this forum for saying much less.
If people are really interested in open discussions feel free to discuss
here if you dare or contact me off list.
73
W0MU
On 12/14/2016 8:22 AM, Kelly Taylor wrote:
> I don’t mind it when a contest decides to not be like every other.
>
> In some ways, packet is a scourge. Especially when used by lazy ops who put
> too much faith in the quality of spots and start dumping their calls onto a
> frequency without listening. Hang on, Mr. BY1, why is your signal strongest
> when I point my antennas at Jamaica?????
>
> Note: I am NOT accusing anyone in this thread of that behaviour. Merely
> pointing out it exists. Nor am I complaining about packet’s existence or
> disparaging those who use it wisely.
>
> If the rules say to be a single op you can’t use packet, my guess is more
> people obey than not. And if there are some who don’t, well, it’s only one
> contest out of hundreds. No big deal.
>
> Has NAQP decided discouraging packet attracts more people than it turns away?
> Perhaps.
>
> The ultimate protest is to vote with your feet. If that does or does not
> result in a large enough drop in participation to force a rules change,
> either way, the majority has spoken.
>
> 73, kelly, ve4xt
>
>> On Dec 13, 2016, at 10:04 PM, W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu@w0mu.com> wrote:
>>
>> Working mults and using packet is a different skill set. I know a lot of
>> people that like it. Some like to work just mults, etc. To each their own.
>> Spinning the dial doesn't teach me anything.
>>
>> Packet is allowed in this contest . If you use it and you are a single op
>> with one radio you get classified into a class of multi operator with two
>> transmitters. Once again they can do whatever they want.
>>
>> If you want to not include packet then remove it for M2 as well or not.
>> Apparently this contest needs packet but just not for Single Ops. A bit of
>> hypocrisy here don't you think?
>>
>> What other contest dumps single ops into a M2 class because they use packet
>> that has been in contesting for how many years now.
>>
>> Congrats on having more participants that the contest can handle, no need to
>> find new ways to keep people interested. <Sarcasm off> Back under my rock.
>>
>> I am willing to be that many use packet anyway and turn in SO scores or they
>> don't turn in scores.
>>
>> W0MU
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 12/13/2016 8:22 PM, Tom Haavisto wrote:
>>> There was some discussion about this issue some months ago here on
>>> CQ-Contest. The consensus was - no packet for single ops, and it seems
>>> like a great option. *Every* contest does not need packet for single ops -
>>> just need to learn to spin the dial, or call CQ (a lot) to find those
>>> elusive mults! Consider it a chance to improve your contesting skills.
>>>
>>> Not sure why this (continuation) of the rules for single ops will suddenly
>>> discourage folks from getting on, as participation seems quite good with
>>> the current rules.
>>>
>>> Next thing you know, single ops with one radio will complain about folks
>>> who have two radios/do SO2R, and state they need to be in a separate class
>>> :<evil grin>.
>>>
>>> Tom - VE3CX
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 7:51 PM, W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu@w0mu.com
>>> <mailto:w0mu@w0mu.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> So you either operate SO no assistance or you get stuffed into a
>>> M2? There is no M1? Why the bias against packet? So If I want
>>> to use packet and chase mults all over I get dumped into a class
>>> where there are people using two transmitters at the same time?
>>>
>>> Explain to me how these changes or rules encourage people to get
>>> on? What am I missing here?
>>>
>>> W0MU
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12/13/2016 1:55 PM, Chris Hurlbut wrote:
>>>
>>> The North American QSO Party rules have been revised!
>>>
>>> Current rules found here: http://ncjweb.com/NAQP-Rules.pdf
>>> <http://ncjweb.com/NAQP-Rules.pdf>
>>>
>>> Please take a moment to read them as there are some
>>> significant changes.
>>>
>>> Including, but not limited to:
>>> - Expanded multiplier list (Certain stations out east, rejoice!)
>>> - Off time rule clarification.
>>> - Output power clarification
>>> - M/2 classification clarification
>>> - Log entry deadline changed to 5 days
>>>
>>> Please pass this info along to any and all reflectors that may
>>> find it
>>> useful.
>>>
>>> Contest logging software authors, please update your NAQP
>>> multiplier lists
>>> where applicable.
>>>
>>> NAQP CW is January 14th, SSB is January 21st, and RTTY is
>>> February 25th!
>>> See you there!
>>>
>>> -Chris KL9A
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>>> CQ-Contest@contesting.com <mailto:CQ-Contest@contesting.com>
>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>>> <http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>>> CQ-Contest@contesting.com <mailto:CQ-Contest@contesting.com>
>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>>> <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
_______________________________________________
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
|