[CQ-Contest] NAQP Rules

[Hank Greeb]

I only compete with my past effort - and consider which changes, if any 
at my station has increased or decreased my ability to make contacts 
under similar propagation conditions.

We could dissect most any contest into so many parts that each wins 
his/her category.

72/73 de n8xx Hg
QRP >99.44% of the time

On 1/12/2014 21:25, cq-contest-request at contesting.com wrote:
> Message: 5
> Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2014 16:58:24 -0500
> From: "Jeff Clarke" <ku8e at bellsouth.net>
> To: <cq-contest at contesting.com>
> Subject: [CQ-Contest] NAQP Rules
> Message-ID: <ED6245B897EE4EAD825A40198D051234 at KU8EPC>
> Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="UTF-8"
>
> Am I the only one who has a big letdown when I check the 3830 scores and see how badly I get beaten? I don?t know who figured out that someone like myself who is running wire antennas (or someone with wires/tribander beam) can be compared evenly to someone with a big station with multiple monoband beams on towers just because we are both running 100 watts. That?s silly. Those big stations would still probably beat me even if I ran a KW.  And it?s not because I?m a poor operator.
>
> Here are some ideas :
>
> 1) Have both a SO2R class and a classic category (one radio) like they have in CQWW .
> 2) Add a tribander/wires category
> 3) High and low power classes
> 4) Add an assisted category
> 5) Divide the US into regions and have top ten boxes for each of them. The way conditions were yesterday the west coast had even more of an advantage then they usually do because 15 and 10 meters were both open pretty good.
>
> Don?t take this email the wrong way (as complaining) because I love NAQP CW and the activity yesterday was great. It?s just a pretty stale contest because the same 3 or 4 stations win every year for a long as I can remember. Plus I would love to compete against someone who has a station more equal to mine.
>
> Jeff KU8EJeff KU8E