I am opposed to most of the changes. If they are adopted, I will
continue to support the GQP. However, there is something to be said for
stability of rules, making all-time records meaningful, for not
confusing all the software programs already out there to log and score
the contest, and for having a mostly achievable number of multpliers.
If adopted, I will have no software to score the contest. I will be
able to submit a Cabrillo file, but I will have no idea what my score is
until the official results are out.
I have been entering all the paper logs into NA and creating a Cabrillo
file for them including their claimed scores. In the future, I can
still create the Cabrillo file, but will be unable to include a claimed
score.
It will take years for the contest (if ever) loggers to catch up with
these widespread and confusing rule changes. Some, such as NA, will
never be updated by the original creator of the program, but he didn't
create the GQP module anyway (N4BP did in 1999). We had achieved a
degree of logging and scoring availability with many of the loggers
available and we will start over from scratch with no logging program
being able to score the logs correctly.
I have no objection to adding 160 and 6M. In the 1960s, 1970s, and
early 1980s when I was running GQP, it included 160M and VHF. But there
was very little activity on either. It was in May then and 160M would
not be as good as in April. In May, there is more likely to be E skip
on 6M than in April. I think April is almost a non existent month for
6M and it will add very little to allow 6M QSOs except on a local basis
and we have never been trying to encourage locals to get on and work
just each other.
73,
John, K4BAI.
|