[CQ-Contest] NAQP CW - Rules Changes Needed

[WW3S]

I think many opinions have strayed far from Petes original point….assisted ops ARE ALREADY there. They are forced to enter as M/2. Pete was simply asking why, why not create a single op assisted, instead of forcing us to enter as M/2. Btw, assisted ops do operate in the Stew Perry, they just enter as a check log…..

Sent from my iPad

> On Aug 9, 2021, at 1:07 PM, RT Clay <rt_clay at bellsouth.net> wrote:
> 
>  I was asked what will change for the unassisted ops if an assisted class is added. I would expect that if an assisted class was added, close to 50% of the entrants would go assisted. That would make a big change on the dynamics of the contest:
> 
> 1. Cluster pileups on rare mults. In NAQP even with a small station (I operated NAQP for years with only wires...a tribander at 50' would have been huge) you can still find mults and not have to fight through big pileups. This will make the contest less friendly for small stations. Even small stations can run in NAQP. If there are many assisted stations who are always calling the rarer mults first, the run rate may actually go down for small stations in more common states.
> 2. The whole strategy of band choice and mult finding would change. Because mults count per-band and NAQP is short, finding mults on multiple bands is a big deal. This weekend I found 10 open to the east coast later in the afternoon (2200z?). Very few were there. Later 15 was open to W9. A ZF moved me from 15 to 10 when nobody else was on 10. Finding these openings is part of what makes NAQP fun and challenging. With the reverse beacon network these openings would be discovered instantly, and unassisted ops would find them easier as well (it is easier to see 10 is open when a whole bunch of assisted ops are there). You can argue that this would be better and allow more qsos to be make, but it would certainly take out part of what makes the contest interesting and makes skill count.
> 
> #2 is also why unassisted stations should not be allowed to look at their own callsign reports in reverse beacon during the contest. Hint: want to see if 10 is open? Check the beacon band 28.200-300...
> 
> BTW ncjweb.com now has results available all the way back to the first NAQP (1991). NAQP has grown quite a bit in popularity so I don't see what needs "fixing" about it. High scorers now are making twice as many qsos as in the 1990's.
> 
> 73 Tor N4OGW
>   On Monday, August 9, 2021, 6:45:15 AM CDT, Kevan Nason <knason00 at gmail.com> wrote:  
> 
> It was after several trips to a multi-multi that the assisted bug bit me
> hard, so I understand the “old school” viewpoint.  Although most all my
> operation now is Assisted, I welcome the NAQP to keep unassisted skills
> sharp. That’s because, IMHO, Assisted ops don’t generally score high
> without also being good runners and having strong S&P skills. Let’s keep
> NAQP’s unassisted. Besides, there are evidently several people who like the
> rules as they are. (Many have forgotten it, but there is word called
> “compromise”. Not every contest has to try and please everyone.)
> 
> 
> 
> Wait until participation goes down before changing the rules?  You think
> people would come back in after leaving?  That doesn’t sound like a good
> idea to me. We want to encourage more new contesters, not discourage the
> old ones that are still here. If anything, keeping old folks around who
> want to be assisted is actually a reason to change the rules. It would be
> good to keep them happy. On the other hand, changing to allow Assisted
> might drive some out. Experience says people are more likely to stick
> around and keep griping if things stay the same; as opposed to more likely
> to leave if they don't like a change that was forced on them. Let's leave
> it alone and keep more people contesting.
> 
> 
> 
> As a separate issue, people talk a lot about abusing power limits in the
> NAQP’s. I noticed (and later post-contest read a comment from a second ham
> that he too experienced the same thing) that within a minute or two of
> showing up CQing on a new band I would have a rush of people calling me. It
> was remarkably similar to being fresh RBN meat in a contest that allows
> spotting. After the initial rush, things settled out to normal rates. Just
> as it does in a contest where people are using spots. What’s up with that?
> It happened often enough to be suspicious. Rhetorical question, but don’t
> people with well known calls read the rules? It was suggested it was SO2R
> operating. Both the other ham and I thought we were found way too quickly
> for that to be plausible. Occam's Razor suggests spotting assistance was
> being used by too many people in this contest.
> 
> 
> Art, are you implying people who like assistance are wimps?
> 
> 
> Kevan N4XL
> _______________________________________________
> 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