Re: [CQ-Contest] Here we go again

[Pete Smith <n4zr@contesting.com>]

While we're at it, let's get serious about revising this contest to 
stimulate more activity.  Make mults one per band rather than 
overall.  Wouldn't the first 5-band or 6-band sweep be something?  Allow 
one QSO per station per band, and eliminate the Sunday doldrums.

To my mind, this would make virtually the perfect contest -- an exchange 
with content that *must* be copied, retaining potential for modest stations 
to make lots of contacts and rack up respectable scores, and 24 hours 
on-time.  Having more mults and Qs available would make the off-time 
decision into a critical strategic choice rather than deciding which 6 
hours will be the worst.

In the past, suggestions of this sort were met with the complaint, "That'd 
be just another NAQP."  My response is "What's wrong with that," 
particularly if it attracts SS-plus levels of participation instead of the 
few hundred regulars who get involved in NAQPs.

73, Pete N4ZR

At 07:18 PM 11/22/2004, Richard Zalewski wrote:

> This is part of my post from Sweepstakes.
>
> When are we going to wake up and sit at
> the table and restructure the operating classes of not only this contest but
> all.  If we are going to have classes and not just a free for all then SO2R
> needs to be dealt with so that the classes have some meaning.  And while 
> we are
> at it Packet is here for the foreseeable future so deal with it also.
>
> Let the fun begin!!
>
> Dick W7ZR
> _______________________________________________
> 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