[CQ-Contest] NAQP Revised Rules
W0MU Mike Fatchett
w0mu at w0mu.com
Fri Dec 16 11:20:31 EST 2016
Ok maybe one of the originating NA QP organizers will answer this. If
packet was not desired then why do we have a class that allows it? It
would have been easy to avoid from the start. Just not allow it.
I am not trying to broaden or change anything. I was curious why people
that were actually SO were dumped into another category and subsequently
not recognized for what they have done in the contest. To reclassify
people that are a boy, a radio and his computer into a class where the
winners are always multiple people, multiple radios and computers makes
no sense to me. Why is that so hard for you to understand...........See
how that works.
Instead of having any meaningful discussions about it, we have contest
organizers that are afraid to post and defensive about it. Why? Is
there something being hidden here?
Since nobody really wants to discuss anything I guess the thread is and
was pointless. I guess I should have asked if the organizers were open
to discussing the rule changes first. It would have saved a bunch of
time and wasted bandwidth.
Good luck in the NA QP's
On 12/15/2016 11:14 PM, David Gilbert wrote:
> Not sure why this is so difficult to understand.
> As I see it, the focus of NAQP has always been as a single op activity
> ... low power and simple structure (I could list several facets of the
> contest that support that claim). Packet pretty much disrupts that
> intent, so those who insist on using packet get relegated to a
> "secondary" multi-user category instead of adding another category to
> support an activity (packet) that the contest as originally configured
> probably preferred to avoid anyway.
> You're trying to broaden the focus of this contest and make it like
> lots of others. Most NAQP ops seem to prefer that it doesn't. I'm
> not a huge fan of K0HB's incessant "a boy and his radio" mantra, but I
> think it applies pretty well in this case. In my opinion, that's a
> major appeal of the contest.
> Dave AB7E
More information about the CQ-Contest