[CQ-Contest] QSO Parties
k4bai at worldnet.att.net
Wed Mar 11 11:21:55 PDT 2009
Michael Coslo wrote:
> On Mar 10, 2009, at 4:55 PM, <w2lc at twcny.rr.com> <w2lc at twcny.rr.com>
>> QSO Parties
>> I have been asked on several occasions to resurrect the New York QSO
>> Party. Seems that there are a few people out there with good
>> memories, that remember that the SUNY at Buffalo ARC sponsored the
>> NYQP years ago, and that I did all the arrangements for a few years,
>> as well as other UB Alumni before me. If I remember correctly RPI,
>> Cornell and other NY school clubs also sponsored the NYQP over the
>> years. I believe sponsorship was passed around from school to school
>> for awhile.
> I'm excited. I've always liked the format of State parties, and they
> can coax me away from my paperwork.
> Having rotating sponsorship is a pretty good idea. While there can be
> some uneveness, it might help avoid burnout.
>> So with that said comes the hard part, rules and a date for the
>> NYQP. OK the rules seem pretty easy, since I basically copied the
>> successful CQP and PAQP rules. Thanks guys. I took the easy way out,
>> but put in a few of my own tweaks.
> No problem.
>> Now for the date. This is the hard part. Winter months are OUT. I
>> live in upstate NY and it has a tendency to snow here, a lot,
>> especially near Buffalo and Watertown along Lake Erie and Lake
> <some snippage>
>> Fall dates that may be good in order of preference:
>> October 10-11, PAQP is this weekend
>> October 3-4, CQP is this weekend, and there is a local conflict on
>> the 3rd
>> October 31 – November 1, a long shot - in between big contests
>> November 21-22 – maybe but probably not, too many other contests
>> this month
>> There is the hazard of choosing a weekend already used by another
>> good QSO party. Will it sit well with them? Or maybe more activity
>> might be better for them too?
> In the times I've tried doing two parties at once, I've tended to end
> up concentrating on the one that propagation favors in the end.
> As for how it sits, I can say from experience that some folks are
> pretty territorial. When I added digital modes to PAQP I caught a lot
> of flak from organizers of a rtty test that takes place the same
> My own thoughts are that since I've discovered the joys of mobile
> contesting, I'd love to come up next door to NY to work mobile in
> their Party. Probably a few other mobiles would too. If we were on the
> same weekend, I couldn't do that.
> If my experience regarding working multiple parties is at all common,
> it would be that one will be dominant. This might argue for having
> NYQSO on the weekend of the third. My rationale is that east coast
> stations will give the California Ops some multipliers from our neck
> of the woods, and vice versa.
>> Anything else to be aware of?
>> I can think of a few like logging software/checking, sponsorship,
> I don't know how you plan on doing Canadian Ops. One of the things PA
> does a little different is the VE sections. This was all decided
> before I took over, so I can't claim credit or blame. But the
> rationale for our different handling was that the standard system is
> the equivalent of taking say the entire New England area and having it
> be as one multiplier. Point is, I take a fair amount of grief over
> that one, but would take equal or more grief by changing it - records,
> log programs, etc.
>> Or should I just pretend no one ever asked me about doing the NYQP
>> again? I might do this, so don't tell anyone. :)
> Having a new party next door would be awesome, IMO.
> -73 de Mike N3LI -
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
You might want to ask the Scandinavians about rotating sponsorships.
The national associations of the Scandinavian countries rotate
sponsorships of the SAC contests each September. It has often been the
case that one of the national organizations didn't get the results out
in a timely fashion or didn't get the awards out timely or even at all.
The ones to take the heat would be the next couple of associations who
sponsored the SAC for the coming years.
I think it would likely work much the same in a state QSO party. Unless
there is a stable sponsor who will put the thing together from year to
year and take the accolades or the criticism for the past years, it is
probably doomed to failure. Not that the SAC has failed, but I think it
might be fatal for state QSO parties.
More information about the CQ-Contest