[SECC] GQP

[ku8e@bellsouth.net]

My suggestion to count multipliers only once is for the benefit of those working the GQP from outside
of Georgia. Presently, the activity, especially on SSB, is not even close where someone might be able
to come close to a "sweep". (i.e all counties on both modes)  Plus, I think if you do an analysis of the logs recieved from outside GA that CW is the mode of choice...

I guess I don't understand how some of you think this will effect activity on SSB. There is no connection. The rover stations work 90% of their QSO's on CW because the rate is better.
Why should I bother to go to SSB when I have only 30 mins in a county and I can average 90 per
hour working CW ???? If I could do this on SSB I would but being a rover your signal is usually weak
and you have a hard time holding a frequency on SSB...

If someone wants to change qso points to one point on both CW and SSB go ahead. It will not 
change anything. Those of you that like to operate SSB will be on equal footing with those who
choose CW as far as scoring but I am sure you will not  have a competitive score because most of the activity is on CW...

Most of the contesting programs are easy to change. In NA all you would have to do is to go into the template editor and change the multipier setting - a 2 minute job....

Tommy...

You friends in Thomasville, Albany, and Valdosta  must be living in a cave. The contest was publicized in all the major magazines, online on various websites and in the ARRL section news 
that our section manager - AF4FO - publishes and emails to all ARRL members in GA. I'm not sure 
what else you can do to get the word out ????


Jeff


> 
> From: "Tommy" <aldermant at alltel.net>
> Date: 2005/04/12 Tue AM 08:27:44 EDT
> To: "SECC" <secc at contesting.com>
> Subject: [SECC] GQP
> 
> May as well throw my 2 cents into the rules discussion.
> 
> I didn't participate in the GQP this year, partly because I had company and
> partly because there is no category in which I can participate. I don't do
> SSB, especially for contesting (just my personal choice), and no amount of
> contest rules is going to 'encourage' me to do so.
> 
> Why can't there be separate mode categories? The answer I got was it makes
> scoring difficult plus the SECC was trying to 'encourage' multi-mode
> operation. Why? If scoring is too difficult with separate mode categories,
> ask the members for assistance. I certainly would be willing to help do
> that. I personally don't think contest rules should encourage any one mode
> and specifically not multi-mode, I think contest rules should encourage
> participation, not modes of operation.
> 
> Contesting software, as John says, can be a problem. Depending, of course,
> on what software you use. The software I use makes it extremely easy to
> change contest rules your self before contest. Heck my software did not even
> have the GQP covered, so I wrote the simple GQP module myself and
> distributed it to others using the software.
> 
> What ever changes are made to the rules, I do hope they are re-written so
> they are easily understandable by everyone. I think it's really bad practice
> to wait until a month before the contest, to start making rule changes. Last
> year, because of rule confusion, I worked hard (and enjoyed it) to do well
> in the CW category, only to find out 11 months later that there was no high
> power CW category for the 04 contest, even though one of the category boxes
> in the rules listed that category.
> 
> I checked with the clubs in Thomasville, Albany, and Valdosta and none of
> those clubs even knew the GQP was being held!
> 
> Tommy
> 
> W4BQF
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> SECC mailing list
> SECC at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/secc
>