[CQ-Contest] Revised 2011 NAQP Rules
k.alexander at rogers.com
Thu Jan 6 05:50:51 PST 2011
While you guys are busy trying to save ham radio contesting by finding the perfect word to substitute for assisted I hope you won't lose sight of the fact that the contest is this weekend! I'd hate to see you missed it!
Myself, I flipped a coin and will be in the RTTY Roundup this weekend...where the debate rages on the RTTY mailing list whether to include "de" before your call in an exchange. Geesh!
Good to see we have our brightest minds working in these earth-shaking issues for the benefit of mankind.
73 - Ken, VE3HLS
--- On Wed, 1/5/11, Paul O'Kane <pokane at ei5di.com> wrote:
> From: Paul O'Kane <pokane at ei5di.com>
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Revised 2011 NAQP Rules
> To: cq-contest at contesting.com
> Date: Wednesday, January 5, 2011, 1:48 PM
> On 05/01/2011 14:19, Bob Naumann
> > 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.
> Agreed - all relevant technology assists. Computer
> loggers assist, SCP assists ....
> > 1) Single Operator
> > 2) Single Operator Plus
> > 3) Single Operator Extreme
> I suggest
> 1) Single Operator SO
> 2) Single Operator Hybrid SOH (uses other comms
> technologies or
> multi-channel decoders)
> I don't see any reason to have a third category
> of single-op, athough some may argue for a multi-op
> extreme category.
> A definition like this offers the possibility
> of introducing a multi-op "unassisted" category,
> for teams preferring not to use other communications
> technologies or multi-channel decoders.
> Paul EI5DI
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
More information about the CQ-Contest