It seems to me this question has been asked and answered. The majority
prefer NAQP to remain as it is with the focus on Single Operator non-assisted
operation. I get weary of the argument that those who resist packet use
in a particular contest are dated or behind the times. I, like many, have a
state of the art station (with modest antennas) with the latest logging
software and set up for SO2R. Although I often use the spotting network in
DX contests, I just do not see the thrill of having other guys (or
technology) find mults for me in a domestic contest like NAQP.
Yes - it is true that another category could be added for SOA. However, I
also worry about category inflation in contests. By adding another
category, you have just doubled the number of awards and , perhaps, watered
down
the prestige of competing for the top spots whether they be at the national
or state level.
I do agree with the K8MR that, if there is one tweak that might make sense
for NAQP, it would be to remove the 10 minute rule in the M-2 class.
Because single ops wanting to use the spotting network are forced into the M-2
class, the 10 minute rule effectively eliminates the ability for these
single ops to do SO2R which, in my opinion, is crucial to have success in this
event.
Finally, when there are spirited discussions like this on a particular
topic, I often go back and look at the contest results to see how active those
with the most vocal opinions are. I always give more weight to those calls
who I consistently see listed in the contest results.
73,
Al, K0AD
In a message dated 12/18/2016 2:45:56 A.M. Central Standard Time,
w0mu@w0mu.com writes:
So how does that affect you as a single op?
You are not competing against SOA.
How is your reward removed because I worked someone using packet? I can
still use packet just like M2. I can use 1500 watts if I want and
submit no log or a check log. How does that change what you do?
We used to ride horses and buggies too, some still do but 99 percent of
us have moved on the cars, bikes other forms of transportation. We used
to use spark gap transmitters. So you have drawn a hard line in the
sand for packet yet use, computers, fancy SO2R boxes and other
enhancements to better your score. Anyone up for paper logging and dupe
sheets?
Please explain how another 70 or even 300 people in their own class is
going to change anything?
You are not competing against people with packet. So don't the other
single ops have to find people by spinning the knobs? All the knob
spinners are in the same boat and those that spin knobs and watch spots
are in another boat and racing against each other not you. At a drag
race everyone uses the same two tracks but they have 10 to 20 classes.
I guess some would want to eliminate certain classes because they are
too loud or go too fast? Isn't this what you are doing with packet?
People don't like it so somehow it changes how they operate. Am I wrong
here?
What you won't say is that you might have a more difficult time working
a mult because there might be a pileup caused by packet. I use packet
and still find new mults on my own before they get spotted.
You realize that the people use packet to SPOT YOU and that gets you
more contacts............. Or maybe you all have forgotten that part.
W0MU
On 12/17/2016 12:21 PM, Mike Smith VE9AA wrote:
> Because Tom, it changes the whole dynamic and mechanics of the contest.
>
> Right now, rare sections will be discovered by all single ops by spinning
> the VFO and using their ears.
>
>
>
> If there were to be a SO(A) category instituted, rare sections would
always
> (or usually) have a "packet pileup" on them.
>
> The unassisted op is no longer rewarded for being a sharp fox with
elephant
> ears due to the fact assisted ops and the massive worldwide RBN
>
> feeds beats them to the punch in 99% of cases.
>
>
>
> It used to be, the sharp ops found the most mults by THEMSELVES. Now ,
> anyone with a telnet feed can find the mults..
>
>
>
> Mike VE9AA
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I have subscribed to the "boy and his radio" idea since I started ham
>
> radio in 1975, and have never been much of a fan of packet. I have
>
> always likened it to spoon feeding. However, I have a question to
>
> those who have expressed their opposition to it in this thread:
>
> If a separate SOA category was created for NAQP, how would that
>
> detract from the enjoyment of operating the contest for those
>
> who choose to run under the SO category? I can't see how it would
>
> change anything as far as the actual mechanics of the contest is
concerned,
>
> other than it might incite a few people who would not otherwise
participate
>
> to join in, meaning more QSO's for the SO ops. The only thing it would
>
> change
>
> would be to move numbers from one section of the score results to
another.
>
> The ops who are at the top of the heap in the scores are still going to
be
>
> there, no matter what category they are in, because they have better
>
> operating skills and better stations.
>
>
>
> Let the assisted stations fight it out amongst themselves, it matters
>
> not a wit to me.
>
>
>
> K0SN
>
>
>
> Mike, Coreen & Corey
>
> Keswick Ridge, NB
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|