Savage, et al,
You have a good point about requiring a minimum number of
participants per class/category. And I agree with changing the
minimum number of participants to setting a minimum number of QSO's
for qualification for an award. Ed made this suggestion, then without
knowing Ed had done so, I made the same suggestion to Mike. However,
I think you have a better idea!
However, it is not totally clear to me what else you are disagreeing
with? Personally, I think going with SSB, CW, and Mixed categories
WILL attract more participants in the GQP, certainly not decrease the
participation. Your providing an increased number of categories which
people can choose from.
Before these rules were modified, there WAS a study done of the FQP,
CQP, TNQP, and several other state contest rules so there would be
some type of 'guideline' to follow. It was pointed out to me that the
GQP rules were a copy of the FQP rules, so I'm not clear about your comparison?
I have taken over GQP plaque distribution from Jay. In the
documentation I have from Jay, you are listed as the sponsor for the
US/VE QRP plaque and you have advised me that you will remain it's
sponsor for 2006 (big thank you!). But to my knowledge, the GQP has
never had a US/VE QRP CW category, which I think, it what Mike is
trying to achieve with the GQP rules update now.
Tom - W4BQF
At Tuesday 10:56 PM 12/6/2005, you wrote:
>
>In a message dated 12/6/2005 18:26:45 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
>mrcne4s at yahoo.com writes:
>
>I propose that we allow three types of entries, SSB, CW, and Mixed.
>The awards for these entries can be discussed further, but as a base I
>propose that in place of plaques for the new entries, certificates
>be issued for
>the appropriate awards as are now issued.
>I also propose that Ed's comment of needing 3 entries in a category/class be
>met for an award to be issued be adopted. This may trim the total award set
>a bit.
>
>
>
>If I understand this proposal, I seriously disagree and think both issues
>would be a mistake, decreasing participation and plaque sponsorship.
>The intent
>of the GQP is to create as many QSOs a possible with between GA stations and
>stations outside the state.
>
>Each station with the high score in each category should receive a
>certificate even if it is the only entry. I have no control over the
>activity of other
>stations and should not be penalized if others do not participate in a
>category I select. The objective should be to give out as many awards as
>appropriate, not to trim the award set. The more awards, the more
>participants. Awards
>should be issued for second and third place winners of a category if there
>was a significant effort. If you must place restrictions on a category,
>require a minimum of 100 or 200 QSOs but do not require a minimum
>number of entries
>over which I have no control.
>
>Plaques should also be given for all first place winners of all categories
>if a sponsor is available. A sponsor does not wish to provide a plaque --
>maybe, if there are at least 3 entries. For the last three years, I
>have offered
>to sponsor a plaque for US/VE QRP CW and the offer was rejected. I would
>offer again but not if a winner is pending for months after the Party and it
>depends on the number of entries.
>
>The FQP is probably the most successful QSP in the U.S. Why not pattern our
>rules after success. The GQP will either make it or break it in the next few
>years -- it's our choice.
>
>Bruce, AA4Z
>_______________________________________________
>SECC mailing list
>SECC at contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/secc
|