[CQ-Contest] NAQP Revised Rules

[W0MU Mike Fatchett]

There is nothing dangerous in having a reasonable discussion.

I will take your word that what you said is true.  It makes no sense to 
me why you would not list those that helped

Maybe in future listings SO entries could be pointed out?

So what is the reasoning for allowing packet in M2 at all?  If it is 
discouraged for SO why would it not be discouraged for M2? What is good 
for the goose.........

Thanks for stepping up and sharing this data.

W0MU



On 12/15/2016 3:42 PM, ac0w at charter.net wrote:
>
> 	I know this is dangerous being the NAQP SSB Manager and responding
> but felt some clarification is needed with the numbers of M-2 stations
> listed in the post below.
>
> 	While the numbers used are correct for the published data, the
> published data does not accurately list every true multi-op operation
> in the Multi-two category. For some reason individuals submitting the
> logs for multi-ops do not always list all the operators in the log
> submission. Some people just forget to do that, some submissions the
> participants do not want to be listed and some have unlicensed
> individuals who are unsure about typing a name in the operators field.
> Whatever the reason there are many more multi-ops in the Multi-two
> category.
>
> 	Looking at one SSB contest it appears the numbers of multi-op
> stations to single-op assisted in the Multi-two category is closer to
> 60% / 40%, with 60% being the multi-operator stations.
>
> 	Currently the majority of feedback I receive is people like the rules
> as is and to not change. It may change in the future at which time we
> will need to consider changes.
>
> 	On a personal note, I personally like the differences between the
> different contest I participate in. Each one has something different
> that means I need to do something different in my operating or
> strategy. It keeps it fun for me.
>
> 	Bill
>
> 	AC0W
>
> 	NAQP SSB Manager
>
>   Message: 2
>   Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 17:23:20 -0700
>   From: W0MU Mike Fatchett
>   To: Jamie WW3S , "cq-contest at contesting.com"
>
>   Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] NAQP Revised Rules
>   Message-ID:
>   Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
>
>   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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest