[CQ-Contest] NAQP Revised Rules

[Steve London]

I can't answer your specific questions, but I can quote from the 
original rules, in the Jan/Feb 1986 NCJ:

Entry Classification: Single-operator and multi-operator unlimited. 
Multi-operator stations may be multi-transmitter but are limited to one 
signal per amateur band. Use of helpers or spotting nets by single 
operators is not permitted.

and this, following the rules:

Editor's Note: These are the final rules for the 1986 NAQP. The many 
comments, criticisms and suggestions from the NCJ readers were all 
carefully considered - in the end, with magazine deadlines for 
publishing the contest announcement looming near, the final judgement 
was made by K8CC and K5ZF with the hopes of finding a good compromise to 
ensure success of the first NAQP.

------------------------------------------------------

73,
Steve, N2IC

On 12/16/2016 09:20 AM, W0MU Mike Fatchett wrote:
> 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
>
> W0MU
>
>
>
> 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
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>