[CQ-Contest] Revised 2011 NAQP Rules

Bob Naumann W5OV at W5OV.COM
Wed Jan 5 06:19:04 PST 2011


The stats about the entire population are interesting, but how many of these
fine people actually want to operate in the NAQP? Seriously - I suspect that
we're in the single digits if it's even more than one.

I think that people like you describe should be given an exemption to any
rules governing what technology / aids in copying CW that would be forbidden
for otherwise fully-capable single operators.

That said, I'm not in the apparent fringe group of lumping these
"challenged" folks in with being assisted when they are not - they're just
making the best of their situation, doing what they can with their abilities
and I fully support them doing so.

So, in my opinion, anyone who considers themselves as a "challenged" person
(for whatever reason) should be permitted to use a single channel CW decoder
or copying aid in order to allow them to participate in a CW contest  as a
single operator.

My definition of "challenged" does not include lazy or "getting a headache".
Even so, each operator should be given the right to take such an exemption
and he should indicate so on his log. This way no one has to sit in judgment
on whether or not such an exemption is taken legitimately or not. This is
sort of like how we accept when someone claims they are QRP, or low power.
We have no way of knowing if they actually are, so I think this should be
treated the same way.

I hope that clears up my perspective on this. Even so, I remain skeptical
that there are a lot of people who fit this category. Nonetheless, their
situation should be dealt with as an exemption to whatever rule is
established that defines what a single operator is.

So, given that such people will be given an exemption, the discussion should
be able to continue unhindered and focus on defining what a single operator
otherwise should be.

AB7E defined the issue very well when he said:

"The problem I see with almost all of these rule definitions (from contest
sponsor and interested participant alike) is that they focus on listing 
what is not acceptable to use instead of clearly defining what the
acceptable entry would look like.  If I order prime rib at a restaurant 
I describe what I want and how I want it cooked ... I don't list all the
kinds of meat I don't want (chicken, pork, fish) and I don't list all 
the utensils I don't want it cooked with (deep fat fryer, microwave, propane
torch).  Contest sponsors need to define what unassisted 
operation looks like without trying to define what it doesn't look like".

Precisely the point.

So, let's focus on what a single op is - not what an assisted single op is.
When we can agree on what a single operator does, can do, can use, then if
it ain't that, it's something else - which would be next to be defined.

I would also propose that we not focus on the word "assisted". I think that
word at the time it was selected was certainly not chosen to cover whatever
might develop over the coming decades.

I'm thinking that we might want to have 3 single op categories (along with
the exemptions suggested earlier) especially now that we have the "extreme"
category added which is essentially "anything goes".

I'm thinking:

1) Single Operator
2) Single Operator Plus
3) Single Operator Extreme

Let's pick off one at a time.


de W5OV

-----Original Message-----
From: Rex Lint [mailto:rex at lint.mv.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2011 7:40 AM
To: 'Bob Naumann'
Cc: cq-contest at contesting.com
Subject: RE: [CQ-Contest] Revised 2011 NAQP Rules


"So how many of them are there - really?" 

Nearly 10,000,000 persons are hard of hearing and close to 1,000,000 are
functionally deaf. More than half of all persons with hearing loss or
deafness are 65 years or older.  That means 1/30 are hard of hearing (or
worse) and 1/330 are deaf.

If the approximate number of hams in the US is 600K, it's possible that 20K
of them are hard of hearing and 2K of them are deaf.

"who are these guys?"  

When I was VP of the Stanford Amateur Radio Club in the 60's, an elmer of
mine was Bib Wightbrecht, W6MRM. He worked for SRI and was deaf as a stone;
his speech was tough to understand too.  We'd talk on the phone using CW -
he had a scope that would let him read CW. We worked together to get the
club station, W6YX, on RTTY.  Bob went on to use that technology on the
telephone system and is credited with inventing TTY as used by deaf people.

Let's give 'em a break.  


     Rex Lint, Consultant
     26 Brek Drive
     Merrimack, NH 03054
     PH:    603-860-7651    

-----Original Message-----
From: cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com
[mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Bob Naumann
Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2011 8:23 PM
To: cq-contest at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Revised 2011 NAQP Rules

K1TTT said: "If it says by ear, they won't use waterfalls or lights or
vibrators.... they just won't participate, and I think we do want everyone
to participate."

Of course everyone wants everyone to participate.

That said - who are these guys who need to use these non-standard decoding
methods, and how many of them are there - really?  Is there really anyone
who wants to operate CW NAQP who fits this category, or is this an imaginary

I'd hate to see us all getting "wrapped around the axle" (I always like that
one in meetings) for no real reason.


Bob W5OV
(no longer a corporate meeting attender)

CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest at contesting.com

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list