[CQ-Contest] NAQP Revised Rules
W0MU Mike Fatchett
w0mu at w0mu.com
Thu Dec 15 21:00:12 EST 2016
Actually SO can run SO2R and make as many band changes as they wish. It
is only M2 that is hampered by the the 10 minute rule.
M2 is clearly running two radios on different bands with probably two or
more ops.
Today M2 could be 6 radios or more They can only be on 2 bands during
any 10 minute period. They could have 4 people on 20 looking and
working people and 4 more on 15 or 40....just as long as they have one
transmitted signal per band. M2 is not very competitive so I doubt
anything like this is happening too much.
Packet is not another operator.
Any bets how many SO's are using packet anyway and not submitting under
M2? Would they submit under SOA if there was that class? We will never
know the answer to either.
W0MU
On 12/15/2016 12:34 PM, Michael Clarson wrote:
> My take on what the contest is:
>
> Intended to be single op at one radio for as much of the contest as
> possible.
>
> Multi op -- Not intended to be one radio with operators running
> shifts, but to have one op at a radio for much of the contest, hence
> why multi-op is only multi-2.
>
> Spotting? Its treated as another op. Its no longer just one op, but
> one op with help, which makes it a multiop entry. Since there is no
> Multi one, they must now be a multi two. Make sense? --Mike, WV2ZOW
>
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 11:52 AM, W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu at w0mu.com
> <mailto:w0mu at w0mu.com>> wrote:
>
> 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 <mailto: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 <mailto:CQ-Contest at contesting.com>
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> <http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com <mailto:CQ-Contest at contesting.com>
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> <http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest>
>
>
More information about the CQ-Contest
mailing list