[CQ-Contest] NAQP Revised Rules
tom.hellem at gmail.com
Sat Dec 17 10:47:42 EST 2016
I have subscribed to the "boy and his radio" idea since I started ham
radio in 1975, and have never been much of a fan of packet. I have
always likened it to spoon feeding. However, I have a question to
those who have expressed their opposition to it in this thread:
If a separate SOA category was created for NAQP, how would that
detract from the enjoyment of operating the contest for those
who choose to run under the SO category? I can't see how it would
change anything as far as the actual mechanics of the contest is concerned,
other than it might incite a few people who would not otherwise participate
to join in, meaning more QSO's for the SO ops. The only thing it would
would be to move numbers from one section of the score results to another.
The ops who are at the top of the heap in the scores are still going to be
there, no matter what category they are in, because they have better
operating skills and better stations.
Let the assisted stations fight it out amongst themselves, it matters
not a wit to me.
On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 12:36 PM, David Gilbert <xdavid at cis-broadband.com>
> First, a disclaimer. I'm not at all against packet in general. I've
> entered packet categories several times in the past and expect to do so
> But, it seems obvious to me (and it should to you) that NAQP really wants
> to stay focused on single op, single radio participants without extra
> assistance. They apparently (I'm speculating here) don't want to encourage
> packet any more than they want to encourage multiple ops, thus the
> catch-all category of M/2. I completely understand that that makes no
> sense to you ... but I still don't understand why it doesn't. Seems kinda
> obvious to me.
> It's not like there aren't dozens of other contests out there that more
> fully embrace packet. NAQP has it's own flavor ... one that makes it very
> popular just as it is.
> Dave AB7E
> On 12/16/2016 9:20 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
>> 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
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
More information about the CQ-Contest