I agree that the majority of operation was on CW. I really enjoyed that.
BUT....I do see your point.
All I operated was 40 cw with one rig and left it there. Then moved the MP
around for the phone segements. In my case, being so close to GA I
basically stayed on 40 phone with it. Guess what? CW way outplayed phone
84 on CW, 32 on phone. And I had both PHONE and CW up at the SAME TIME on
seperate antennas.
I don't know what the answer is, but I think ssb needs a push somehow.
Dan/W4NTI
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Condon" <mrcne4s at yahoo.com>
To: <secc at contesting.com>
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2005 3:59 PM
Subject: Re: [SECC] GQP rules
> All,
> We may be the culprits in low SSB activity!
> I suggest that SSB would be more desireable if that mode were not lumped
> with CW which has a bonus of points attached.
> The bias is strongly in favor of CW, and some of the interest of the club
> runs that direction.
> The "bias" is the bonus for CW and the final combination of SSB and CW in
> the overall results.
> So, if I get twice as much for CW and the final score is the combination
> of CW and SSB, guess what suffers. This is a "Duh" moment.
>
> I have heard disparaging remarks about "Phone" contests from club members.
> I will probably get some mail on this too, but it is true, sorry.!
>
> But, I believe that SSB currently is the best mode to "popularize" GQP to
> many who are not aware of the event.
> Many now know about the CW activity and the attached overwhelming benefit
> from working CW.
> When the "big" state parties are on the air, you hear a LOT of SSB
> activity.
> We might look at their rules and see why. ( I have not done this yet
> though.)
> And, I for one, am very interested in getting more pariticpation in SSB
> mode.
>
> So, as the new Director of the event I propose some rethink on the
> situation.
> Either remove the CW point bonus...
> And/Or, separate the classes for CW, SSB, and Mixed
>
> Else we may continue to move to a CW only event with limited
> participation.
>
> I like the change to counting GA counties for GA to GA contacts... makes
> sense, as the GA stations compete with GA stations. This is actually a
> mostly neutral change, but the GA scores may be higher overall. As the
> scorer of the event I would veto it as not making an overall difference
> while complicating the score process.
> But, GA to GA activity increases would be good, and have a overflow to the
> overall event.
>
> I do not like the DX multiplier idea, that makes it a DX contest in some
> ways, and favors those who do not concentrate on USA coverage. Stacked
> antennae vs NVIS attempts for example.
> And, as this would be for only GA stations, it seems distracting to the
> general purpose of the event.
>
> I have also noted the gap from a home station to the requirement of 6
> counties to be a rover.
> My current log will be for a Home station, but I operated from 5 counties.
> Let's make the rule to be "2 or more" counties for roving, and perhaps get
> more folks out on the road.
>
> There are now about 50 logs in the hopper !!!!
> Waiting to be processed.....
>
> Mike, NE4S
>
>
> ku8e at bellsouth.net wrote:
>
> A suggestion for 2006 - We should change the multiplier rule from once per
> mode to one total.
> It would also be nice to let GA stations work other GA stations for
> multiplier credit. Might be neat to
> have each DXCC country be a multiplier as well.
>
> The activity on SSB is poor - there is just no interest on that mode. It
> is impossible for non-GA
> stations to get a clean sweep. Counting the counties once... if the rover
> activity is good it might be
> possible...
>
>
> Jeff
>
> _______________________________________________
> SECC mailing list
> SECC at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/secc
>
>
> Please use mrcne4s at attglobal.net as my address.
> Be well,
> Thanks
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
> _______________________________________________
> SECC mailing list
> SECC at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/secc
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.5 - Release Date: 4/7/2005
>
>
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.5 - Release Date: 4/7/2005
|