[CQ-Contest] NAQP Revised Rules

[W0MU Mike Fatchett]

Thanks Steve.

It really doesn't address the packet issue at all other than to say it 
is allowed in multi.  It doesn't support the claim that they never 
wanted packet etc.

I can't recall and do not have the archives to know if NA QP was an NCJ 
sponsored contest from the get go.  I don't subscribe to NCJ but I buy 
them from time to time but NCJ used to be the driving force for 
improvement, new stuff,  computers, so2r, etc. Now it seems that very 
few are interested in finding new young contesters.  Back in 86 most of 
us were the new younger contesters.  What the heck happened?

In 30 years we have essentially the same contest.  People like it, I 
like it.   Essentially nothing new other than SO2R and it is funny that 
the purists have finally given up on fighting that.  So much for the boy 
and his radio concept.

I get it that lots of people dislike packet and the changes to DXing and 
contesting that have happened because of it.  Packet keeps people on the 
air, give people something to do, they like it.  Have you paid any 
attention to the NPOTA event going on?  I have.  There are lots of 
people chasing those entities every day. More activity on the bands is 
good for all of us.  Packet is what makes that event work so well.  Does 
packet create more activity in contests?  I think so.  It that is the 
case then why would we want fewer people playing our game?

   The only change I see is that they had to do something with Single 
ops running packet so they tossed them into a a category that is really 
not what they are doing.  The SO category is 85 percent or more of the 
entries.  M2 does not appear to be growing.  Is this a goal or a desire 
of the Organizers?  Does it make sense to have a class where there 
competition with 3 to 5 entries and the rest don't even come close?  Not 
to me.  Instead of embracing what packet could do, which has very little 
impact on people not using packet, and letting them do their thing they 
get put in a class with band change limits and competing against people 
doing other things in the same contest.  This is like running indy cars, 
stock cars  and monster trucks all on the same track.  Packet is another 
tool in the tool box.

It would sure be nice to have some entity out there like NCJ pushing the 
envelope, trying to get younger hams  interested in contesting.  I am 52 
and on the younger side, my licensed son is 21 and has very little 
interest in contesting but will spend hours playing an online game and 
have more interest handing out contacts while mobile heading back and 
forth to school.

People do not like change, this is a known fact.  Is your opposition to 
packet, SO2R, new things based on solid reasoning or just that it is new.

When I was 12 I thought radio was great.  It was not for everyone.  
Today we have very few young people interested in our hobby and everyone 
seems so set in their ways that attempting new things is completely out 
of the question.

NAQP organizers,  why not run a test of SO Assisted in August and 
advertise it.  Same rules as SO but you can use packet.  Lets see how 
many people try it.  The Olympics test new sports all the time.  What is 
the harm?  Are we really interested in getting new people interested or 
are we just concerned about our fun and we are going to take care of 
ourselves because we don't care about the future of our hobby or 
contesting?


Stew Perry coming up!


W0MU








On 12/16/2016 11:03 AM, Steve London wrote:
> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest