[CQ-Contest] NAQP Revised Rules

[W0MU Mike Fatchett]

To take this one step further I would like to challenge the Organizers 
to show us when the M2 class has actually been dominated by M2 entries.  
I went back and found the following:


Jan 2016 SSB

130 M2 Entries

33 actual M2 participants

Participation of 25% M2


2016 Rtty Feb

74 M2 Entries

20 actual M2 participants

27 percent  M2


Aug 2015  SSB

75 M2 Entries

29 actual M2 participants

38 percent  M2


Aug 2015 CW

77 M2 Entries

13 actual M2 entries

16 percent  M2

We have been doing it wrong for 30 years.  No reason to change now and 
recognize the MAJORITY in this class that are being forced into a 
category they are not really participating in.


Shouldn't the argument made to either add SO A or dump M2 as M2 is not 
representative of the vast majority who are classified into it for the 
reasons unknown?

W0MU



On 12/14/2016 4:05 PM, Jamie WW3S wrote:
> I read it as in Jan 2015 there was around 100 entries in the multi two class and of those around 18 appeared to be "true" multi ops , the rest ( around 82 or 5 times more) were assisted...I think his argument has merit...
>
> On Dec 14, 2016 3:50 PM, Steve London <n2icarrl at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Mike,
>>
>> These are the same rules that the NAQP has had since packet hit the
>> radar screen, almost 30 years ago. Nothing in the rules has changed this
>> year pertaining to your pet peeves. There were no "decisions" made this
>> year, just extremely minor tweaks and clarifications. Why the sudden
>> awakening now ? Where have you been hiding ?
>>
>> Where did you get the wild notion "SOA with 5 times more participants" ?
>>    Name me one significant contest that has 5 times as many SOA
>> participants than SO participants ?
>>
>> Glad I'm not in charge of any major contests. Wouldn't want to be
>> accused of bullying because I won't change a rule that has been in
>> effect for 30 years, while interest in the contest continues to grow,
>> year-by-year.
>>
>> You are welcome to participate, or not. You can even take your money
>> where your opinion is, by not subscribing to the NCJ.
>>
>> 73,
>> Steve, N2IC
>>
>> On 12/14/2016 09:30 AM, W0MU Mike Fatchett wrote:
>>> NAQP allows packet but not for SO.  If going packet-less is so
>>> wonderful, why is it allowed for Multi op?
>>>
>>> Is having packet for M2 catering to a specif group or specific people?
>>> If SO can go without why not M2?
>>>
>>> How many M2 entries were actually from M2's and not SOA?  There were
>>> about 100 entries in Jan 2015 CW for M2.  18 appear to be real multi
>>> ops.  There are more SOA people in that class than actual M2 entries.
>>> You have created a class for 1.5 percent of your players while ignoring
>>> the fact that about 10 percent are in a class they should not be in.  So
>>> in the eyes of the organizers it is better to recognize the efforts of a
>>> select few M2's while ignoring SOA with 5 times more participants?
>>>
>>> Just like remote operation there are people that do not like packet.  I
>>> think everyone gets that part.   There are people that dislike having to
>>> dig QRP signals out of the mud and those that dislike QRO.
>>>
>>> The organizers can do whatever they want and they have.  The contest is
>>> very popular.  I was hoping that maybe those in charge would provide a
>>> bit more detail into the decisions made and the pro's and con's that led
>>> up to those decisions.
>>>
>>> The majority have spoken?  Was there a vote?  How would you know if
>>> another way is better or worse if it is never tried or even discussed
>>> among the participants?
>>>
>>> Interesting advertising for a contest....Hi my contest is great without
>>> packet, but hey if you run multi, guess what you get to run packet. What
>>> exactly does this say.
>>>
>>> Game developers do this in games too.  They attempt to push players to
>>> play the game the way the developers think that you should play. What
>>> happens is the players generally find a much different way to play the
>>> game or reach a specific goals.  The Devs will in many cases attempt to
>>> derail the player found solutions and continue to force players down a
>>> specific path, which ultimately leads to people leaving.
>>>
>>> This list is becoming increasingly more difficult to discuss anything
>>> on.  There is no harm in discussions.  While nobody is accusing anyone
>>> of point and click and blind calling, it is obvious that is exactly what
>>> was said.  Single Op  is no better than SOA. A power is no better than B
>>> power.  This is just a new form of bullying.  Calling out people before
>>> they even have a chance to express an opinion thus their interest in
>>> responding. This is a cute political move and I have had posted denied
>>> from this forum for saying much less.
>>>
>>> If people are really interested in open discussions feel free to discuss
>>> here if you dare or contact me off list.
>>>
>>> 73
>>>
>>> W0MU
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12/14/2016 8:22 AM, Kelly Taylor wrote:
>>>> I don’t mind it when a contest decides to not be like every other.
>>>>
>>>> In some ways, packet is
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest