I can't answer your specific questions, but I can quote from the
original rules, in the Jan/Feb 1986 NCJ:
Entry Classification: Single-operator and multi-operator unlimited.
Multi-operator stations may be multi-transmitter but are limited to one
signal per amateur band. Use of helpers or spotting nets by single
operators is not permitted.
and this, following the rules:
Editor's Note: These are the final rules for the 1986 NAQP. The many
comments, criticisms and suggestions from the NCJ readers were all
carefully considered - in the end, with magazine deadlines for
publishing the contest announcement looming near, the final judgement
was made by K8CC and K5ZF with the hopes of finding a good compromise to
ensure success of the first NAQP.
------------------------------------------------------
73,
Steve, N2IC
On 12/16/2016 09:20 AM, W0MU Mike Fatchett wrote:
Ok maybe one of the originating NA QP organizers will answer this. If
packet was not desired then why do we have a class that allows it? It
would have been easy to avoid from the start. Just not allow it.
I am not trying to broaden or change anything. I was curious why people
that were actually SO were dumped into another category and subsequently
not recognized for what they have done in the contest. To reclassify
people that are a boy, a radio and his computer into a class where the
winners are always multiple people, multiple radios and computers makes
no sense to me. Why is that so hard for you to understand...........See
how that works.
Instead of having any meaningful discussions about it, we have contest
organizers that are afraid to post and defensive about it. Why? Is
there something being hidden here?
Since nobody really wants to discuss anything I guess the thread is and
was pointless. I guess I should have asked if the organizers were open
to discussing the rule changes first. It would have saved a bunch of
time and wasted bandwidth.
Good luck in the NA QP's
W0MU
On 12/15/2016 11:14 PM, David Gilbert wrote:
Not sure why this is so difficult to understand.
As I see it, the focus of NAQP has always been as a single op activity
... low power and simple structure (I could list several facets of the
contest that support that claim). Packet pretty much disrupts that
intent, so those who insist on using packet get relegated to a
"secondary" multi-user category instead of adding another category to
support an activity (packet) that the contest as originally configured
probably preferred to avoid anyway.
You're trying to broaden the focus of this contest and make it like
lots of others. Most NAQP ops seem to prefer that it doesn't. I'm
not a huge fan of K0HB's incessant "a boy and his radio" mantra, but I
think it applies pretty well in this case. In my opinion, that's a
major appeal of the contest.
Dave AB7E
_______________________________________________
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
|