[CQ-Contest] NAQP Revised Rules

[Tom Hellem]

Mike and Jim, I see your points. However, being the good operators
that you are, I can't imagine  short-lived packet pileups preventing
you from working those  mults. When I come across a pileup like that
if I don't snag 'em on 1 or two calls I just put 'em in the bandmap.
Then 5 minutes later a keystroke will put me right back on freq and
one call usually gets 'em.

It seems to me the upside of potentially more participation outweighs
the inconvenience of not working someone on the first go-round every time.
Can we afford to possibly shut out participants over this? At the rate us
graybeards are dying off, before long there won't be anyone left to work
if we do that.

Just my .02.

K0SN

On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 12:21 PM, Mike Smith VE9AA <ve9aa at nbnet.nb.ca>
wrote:

> Because Tom, it changes the whole dynamic and mechanics of the contest.
>
> Right now, rare sections will be discovered by all single ops by spinning
> the VFO and using their ears.
>
>
>
> If there were to be a SO(A) category instituted, rare sections would always
> (or usually) have a "packet pileup" on them.
>
> The unassisted op is no longer rewarded for being a sharp fox with elephant
> ears due to the fact assisted ops and the massive worldwide RBN
>
> feeds beats them to the punch in 99% of cases.
>
>
>
> It used to be, the sharp ops found the most mults by THEMSELVES.  Now ,
> anyone with a telnet feed can find the mults..
>
>
>
> Mike VE9AA
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
> change
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> K0SN
>
>
>
> Mike, Coreen & Corey
>
> Keswick Ridge, NB
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>