[CQ-Contest] NAQP Revised Rules

[W0MU Mike Fatchett]

Reclassifying SO using packet to a completely different class make no 
sense.  If you want to remove packet form NA QP I am all for it.

What is the reasoning behind allowing packet in M2?  If you want a 
"clean" boys and their radios contest then dump the packet.

Dumping single ops that chose to run packet into another class when 
those people dominate the entries is just wrong.

I am still waiting for a reasonable well thought out and reasoned answer 
why SOA does not exist.  Because we did it for 30 years and this is what 
we did live with it is a poor response.  Why are we disenfranchising the 
majority of the people that are in the wrong M2 class?

SOA with unlimited band changes would be a huge rush and sounds like a 
ton of fun to me to chase mults all over and having to decide if that is 
more important than running.  To each their own.

M2 entries comprise around 1 to 2 percent of the entries and get their 
own class.  People that comprise about 10 percent of the contest get 
reclassified.

W0MU




On 12/15/2016 7:50 AM, Jim Stahl via CQ-Contest wrote:
> I don’t have much of a dog in this fight, as I personally like classic single operator, no assistance operating.
>
> There is one downside in the current rules, however: the 10 minute on a band limitation on M2’s severely limits their ability to move and be moved. Since the best way to get mults (and a few extra QSOs) is often to move people, this rule takes this option out of the game for these stations.
>
> Perhaps the 10 minute rule might be waived for M2 stations with only a single operator, i.e. those using spotting?
>
>
> 73  -  Jim  K8MR
>
>
>
>
>> On Dec 14, 2016, at 7:28 PM, Mike Smith VE9AA <ve9aa at nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:
>>
>> de Mike VE9AA
>>
>> I do contests mostly UNassisted.  I like it this way.  The only ones I
>> (grundingly) do assisted are the handful of ones, mostly Euro based that
>> make no distinction between assisted and non. (no sense letting others get
>> ahead of me needlessly if it's something everyone has access to) Oh, and the
>> occasional State QSO party (same thing, no distinction)
>>
>>
>>
>> I like the NAQP just the way it is, as I know ALL single ops are UNassisted
>> !
>>
>>
>>
>> For the highest scorers, the NAQP is mostly a central and west coast game,
>> mostly because of the time of day this starts (so I get a taste of how they
>> feel in a lot of the other contests (CQWW for example) but I don't let that
>> dissuade me from playing all the same.  I work my guts out to spin the dial,
>> use my ears and  make my 100,150 or 200k while the Westerners enjoy the
>> higher bands open much longer.  At this stage in the solar cycle there will
>> be no 10m, little or no 15m and very little 20m.
>>
>>
>>
>> It is what it is, and scores ebb and flow with the solar cycle.  I can look
>> back to the 90's to see what I've done, always knowing I was finding mults
>> myself, because that's the way this particular contest is setup.  I don't
>> enter contests that don't interest me (perhaps due to particulars in the
>> rules pertaining to mults.)  Most of us know what I am referring to ;-)
>>
>>
>>
>> Please don't change anything !
>>
>>
>>
>> Mike VE9AA proudly spinning the VFO in "NB"...CU in the Big Stew this
>> weekend...also UNassisted...no Assisted SO class in this one either !
>>
>> N2IC  sez:
>>
>>
>>
>> Mike, (he's talking to W0MU)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest