[CQ-Contest] Absurd Rule in NAQP

[Ron Notarius W3WN]

Count me in as well.  

NAQP may not be perfect... what is? ... but this is not something that needs
changed.

I would even argue that if those who prefer 'assisted' operating are not
happy with the situation, maybe they should rethink.  If they can't operate
competitively non-assisted... maybe that's telling them something.

73, ron w3wn

-----Original Message-----
From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of
Richard F DiDonna NN3W
Sent: Sunday, January 17, 2016 5:45 PM
To: cq-contest at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Absurd Rule in NAQP

Count me amongst the pool that would not prefer to see an assisted class 
in NAQP.  Every contest does not have to look like the others and have 
100 categories like the others.  I prefer the "simplicity" of NAQP.

73 Rich NN3W

On 1/17/2016 2:02 PM, Steve London wrote:
> On 01/17/2016 09:24 AM, Pete Smith N4ZR wrote:
>> The real question is how much better could it be doing?
>
> Please define "better" ?
>
> The activity level in both NAQP CW and NAQP SSB is already very high. 
> You never run out of folks to work in NAQP. Increase the level of 
> activity more, and the QRM level will just make it unpleasant for 
> everyone. I present CQWW SSB, 15, 20 and 40 meters as good examples of 
> "better" not necessarily being "better".
>
> Pete, it's too bad that you didn't have a working radio over the past 
> two weekends to experience NAQP in its current form.
>
> 73,
> Steve, N2IC
> _______________________________________________
> 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


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus