Yeah, mobiles are definitely important and I do want to focus on
getting them to participate. Also, I'd love to get a copy of your
article. I've looked thru my issues of NCJ and I don't have that one.
You guys are a great resource and I will be looking for more advice
from you as we continue down this path and if you want to jump into
this with me, I might just take you up on it. I'm kind of the lone
contester in the club. Thanks.
-Todd/KN4QD
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 5:56 PM, Dennis McAlpine
<dbmcalpine at earthlink.net> wrote:
> Todd,
>
> Glad to hear there may be some changes in the rules for the SC QSO Party.
> As you know, I do not participate in this contest any more since the year I
> made about 30 QSOs, all out-of-state, and had a score of 0 because I did not
> work any SC counties. ?I still think I should have won for Georgetown County
> but the sponsors apparently disagreed.
>
> In an effort to change the strange rules they had, I sent the SCM and the
> Columbia club a copy of my article in the Sept/Oct 2008 issue of NCJ which
> discussed the varied rules for state QSO Parties. ?This included a
> tabulation of the rules for each of the various state and regional QSO
> Parties. ?Although there have been some changes since then, this will give
> you a pretty good idea of what every other state/regional contest does in
> terms of hours, mults, freq, etc. ?If you do not have a copy of this issue,
> I will be happy to send you a copy of the text and table.
>
> As the article points out, a key to the success of any QSO Party is to have
> a bunch of mobiles running around the state. ?To have that happen requires a
> lot of ground work, promotion and pre-contest effort to make sure that
> activity level is high and all counties are covered.
>
> John, K4BAI, made some excellent points in his e-mail and I agree with
> virtually all of them. ?I am sure that if the rules are changed John/Jeff
> will be willing to run mobile in the counties adjacent to GA. ?I am sure
> that there are other mobiles that can be enticed to chase for a golden
> gamecock or the ilk.
>
> BTW, I am not sure how or why a sponsoring club is named or by whom. ?It
> might be interesting to research that a bit. ?Maybe the SECC, or the SC
> contingent within it, ?could take over another state QSO Party.
>
> If you need any help in formulating changes or organizing an effort, please
> let me know. ?GL.
>
> 73,
>
> Dennis, K2SX
> Pawleys Island, SC
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: secc-bounces at contesting.com [mailto:secc-bounces at contesting.com]
> On
> Behalf Of Todd Atkins
> Sent: Monday, August 29, 2011 3:57 PM
> To: secc at contesting.com; John T. Laney III
> Subject: Re: [SECC] SC QSO Party (changes coming)
>
> Ralph, John, thanks for the input. I'd be very much interested any
> further ideas you have. As for the rules, I can't see a scenario where
> the current ones last beyond the upcoming contest this September. I'm
> working on an outline now with proposed changes and I'll post it up
> and solicit some input once it's complete.
>
> I haven't yet done any research on dates to move the contest but I
> think this is a situation that would benefit from a shorter contest
> period and I also tend to lean towards an 10-12 hour contest starting
> around 2 local time (I really like the NAQPs for this reason also) so
> that one has the opportunity to work both the high and the low bands.
>
> For promotion, that is something that seems to be sorely lacking and
> which also will be addressed. I've already been kicking around some
> website ideas and have a domain name ready to go but don't want to get
> too far down that road until the new rules and dates are finalized.
>
> Of course, I have to get approval from the sponsor club for any of
> these changes but I don't think that will be a huge issue since they
> recognize that the SCQP isn't what it should be.
>
> Thanks,
> -Todd/KN4QD
>
> On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 2:49 PM, John Laney <k4bai at att.net> wrote:
>> Good for you, Todd. ?The SCQP has been a dismal failure for years. Funny
>> rules and very little participation. ?Seemed designed to let one guy with
> a
>> SSB mobile run around SC counties. ?I like the design of most of the
>> mainline QSO Parties. ?You might consider one day, just Saturday or just
>> Sunday for 10 or 12 hours. ?It will be easier to find another weekend if
> you
>> need to and it will be easier I think to get people to commit to a one day
>> contest rather than two. The only downside is that people who like to run
>> mobiles might not want to come great distances to SC for only a short
>> contest.
>>
>> I ran the GQP before computers for about 20 years and have been very
> active
>> in promoting it lately. ?I think I drafted the rules when SECC
> rejeuvenated
>> the GQP in 1999, relying heavily on the FL QP rules.
>>
>> I would caution again power multipliers. ?I am for power divisions with
>> different awards, but power multipliers, as such, tends to encourage
> people
>> to run low power or QRP rather than higher power thus limiting the number
> of
>> possible QSOs by and with those stations.
>>
>> I'd also suggest that allowing in state counties to be multipliers for SC
>> stations is probably a bad idea, since it encourages SC stations to get on
>> the low bands and work each other rather than working all bands to work
> both
>> inside and outside the state and country. ?Also, everyone once in a while,
> a
>> contest allows mults per band. ?Except for the Hawaii QSO Party where
> there
>> is so little activity on each band that it is needed, I think the counties
>> should be multipliers once per contest (or perhaps once per mode for mixed
>> mode stations).
>>
>> There have been many attempts to include RTTY and PSK31 as separate modes
> in
>> state QSO parties and I think all have been failures. ?There are RTTY
>> contests every weekend and the reports of state QSO parties show virtually
>> no RTTY activity in them. ?Even less on PSK.
>>
>> I'll be glad to share other ideas. ?If you want me to give my reaction to
>> various proposals, let me know and I'll tell you what I think works and
> what
>> doesn't, based on over 56 years of contesting.
>>
>> Promotion, both in state and out of state, is essential and some awards,
>> certificates, plaques, etc. seem necessary to attract some contesters. For
>> example, I believe N4PN decides what contest to enter each weekend
> depending
>> on whether he thinks he can win another plaque or not. ?I have so many
>> plaques that I don't really care for certificates or plaques any more, but
>> I'm sure I don't have as many plaques as Paul has. ?But, if you promise
>> plaques, be sure to actually send them out. ?I still remember the Mi QSO
>> Party plaque that I won but never received from the 1960s or 1970s.
>>
>> 73, John, K4BAI.
>>
> _______________________________________________
> SECC mailing list
> SECC at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/secc
>
>
|