Ralph, John, thanks for the input. I'd be very much interested any
further ideas you have. As for the rules, I can't see a scenario where
the current ones last beyond the upcoming contest this September. I'm
working on an outline now with proposed changes and I'll post it up
and solicit some input once it's complete.
I haven't yet done any research on dates to move the contest but I
think this is a situation that would benefit from a shorter contest
period and I also tend to lean towards an 10-12 hour contest starting
around 2 local time (I really like the NAQPs for this reason also) so
that one has the opportunity to work both the high and the low bands.
For promotion, that is something that seems to be sorely lacking and
which also will be addressed. I've already been kicking around some
website ideas and have a domain name ready to go but don't want to get
too far down that road until the new rules and dates are finalized.
Of course, I have to get approval from the sponsor club for any of
these changes but I don't think that will be a huge issue since they
recognize that the SCQP isn't what it should be.
Thanks,
-Todd/KN4QD
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 2:49 PM, John Laney <k4bai at att.net> wrote:
> Good for you, Todd. ?The SCQP has been a dismal failure for years. Funny
> rules and very little participation. ?Seemed designed to let one guy with a
> SSB mobile run around SC counties. ?I like the design of most of the
> mainline QSO Parties. ?You might consider one day, just Saturday or just
> Sunday for 10 or 12 hours. ?It will be easier to find another weekend if you
> need to and it will be easier I think to get people to commit to a one day
> contest rather than two. The only downside is that people who like to run
> mobiles might not want to come great distances to SC for only a short
> contest.
>
> I ran the GQP before computers for about 20 years and have been very active
> in promoting it lately. ?I think I drafted the rules when SECC rejeuvenated
> the GQP in 1999, relying heavily on the FL QP rules.
>
> I would caution again power multipliers. ?I am for power divisions with
> different awards, but power multipliers, as such, tends to encourage people
> to run low power or QRP rather than higher power thus limiting the number of
> possible QSOs by and with those stations.
>
> I'd also suggest that allowing in state counties to be multipliers for SC
> stations is probably a bad idea, since it encourages SC stations to get on
> the low bands and work each other rather than working all bands to work both
> inside and outside the state and country. ?Also, everyone once in a while, a
> contest allows mults per band. ?Except for the Hawaii QSO Party where there
> is so little activity on each band that it is needed, I think the counties
> should be multipliers once per contest (or perhaps once per mode for mixed
> mode stations).
>
> There have been many attempts to include RTTY and PSK31 as separate modes in
> state QSO parties and I think all have been failures. ?There are RTTY
> contests every weekend and the reports of state QSO parties show virtually
> no RTTY activity in them. ?Even less on PSK.
>
> I'll be glad to share other ideas. ?If you want me to give my reaction to
> various proposals, let me know and I'll tell you what I think works and what
> doesn't, based on over 56 years of contesting.
>
> Promotion, both in state and out of state, is essential and some awards,
> certificates, plaques, etc. seem necessary to attract some contesters. For
> example, I believe N4PN decides what contest to enter each weekend depending
> on whether he thinks he can win another plaque or not. ?I have so many
> plaques that I don't really care for certificates or plaques any more, but
> I'm sure I don't have as many plaques as Paul has. ?But, if you promise
> plaques, be sure to actually send them out. ?I still remember the Mi QSO
> Party plaque that I won but never received from the 1960s or 1970s.
>
> 73, John, K4BAI.
>
|