CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] NAQP Revised Rules

To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] NAQP Revised Rules
From: W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu@w0mu.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 09:30:31 -0700
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
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
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>