[SECC] GQP rules

[Dan/W4NTI]

I agree that the majority of operation was on CW.  I really enjoyed that. 
BUT....I do see your point.

All I operated was 40 cw with one rig and left it there.  Then moved the MP 
around for the phone segements.  In my case,  being so close to GA I 
basically stayed on 40 phone with it.  Guess what?  CW way outplayed phone 
84 on CW,  32 on phone.  And I had both PHONE and CW up at the SAME TIME on 
seperate antennas.

I don't know what the answer is,  but I think ssb needs a push somehow.

Dan/W4NTI

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Michael Condon" <mrcne4s at yahoo.com>
To: <secc at contesting.com>
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2005 3:59 PM
Subject: Re: [SECC] GQP rules


> All,
> We may be the culprits in low SSB activity!
> I suggest that SSB would be more desireable if that mode were not lumped 
> with CW which has a bonus of points attached.
> The bias is strongly in favor of CW, and some of the interest of the club 
> runs that direction.
> The "bias" is the bonus for CW and the final combination of SSB and CW in 
> the overall results.
> So, if I get twice as much for CW and the final score is the combination 
> of CW and SSB, guess what suffers. This is a "Duh" moment.
>
> I have heard disparaging remarks about "Phone" contests from club members. 
> I will probably get some mail on this too, but it is true, sorry.!
>
> But, I believe that SSB currently is the best mode to "popularize" GQP to 
> many who are not aware of the event.
> Many now know about the CW activity and the attached overwhelming benefit 
> from working CW.
> When the "big" state parties are on the air, you hear a LOT of SSB 
> activity.
> We might look at their rules and see why. ( I have not done this yet 
> though.)
> And, I for one, am very interested in getting more pariticpation in SSB 
> mode.
>
> So, as the new Director of the event I propose some rethink on the 
> situation.
> Either remove the CW point bonus...
> And/Or, separate the classes for CW, SSB, and Mixed
>
> Else we may continue to move to a CW only event with limited 
> participation.
>
> I like the change to counting GA counties for GA to GA contacts... makes 
> sense, as the GA stations compete with GA stations.  This is actually a 
> mostly neutral change, but the GA scores may be higher overall.  As the 
> scorer of the event I would veto it as not making an overall difference 
> while complicating the score process.
> But, GA to GA activity increases would be good, and have a overflow to the 
> overall event.
>
> I do not like the DX multiplier idea, that makes it a DX contest in some 
> ways, and favors those who do not concentrate on USA coverage.  Stacked 
> antennae vs NVIS attempts for example.
> And, as this would be for only GA stations, it seems distracting to the 
> general purpose of the event.
>
> I have also noted the gap from a home station to the requirement of 6 
> counties to be a rover.
> My current log will be for a Home station, but I operated from 5 counties. 
> Let's make the rule to be "2 or more" counties for roving, and perhaps get 
> more folks out on the road.
>
> There are now about 50 logs in the hopper !!!!
> Waiting to be processed.....
>
> Mike, NE4S
>
>
> ku8e at bellsouth.net wrote:
>
> A suggestion for 2006 - We should change the multiplier rule from once per 
> mode to one total.
> It would also be nice to let GA stations work other GA stations for 
> multiplier credit. Might be neat to
> have each DXCC country be a multiplier as well.
>
> The activity on SSB is poor - there is just no interest on that mode. It 
> is impossible for non-GA
> stations to get a clean sweep. Counting the counties once... if the rover 
> activity is good it might be
> possible...
>
>
> Jeff
>
> _______________________________________________
> SECC mailing list
> SECC at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/secc
>
>
> Please use mrcne4s at attglobal.net as my address.
> Be well,
> Thanks
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
> _______________________________________________
> SECC mailing list
> SECC at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/secc
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.5 - Release Date: 4/7/2005
>
> 



-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.5 - Release Date: 4/7/2005