[OhQP-mail] Suggestion for 2015 (Or later) OHQP

Sat Apr 12 18:38:15 CDT 2014

Great post Dave and spot on as well. I don't usually reply to his posts 
as I don't believe in feeding trolls.

On 4/12/2014 5:08 PM, David Bunte wrote:
> Hank et al -
>
> At first I was not going to weigh in on this one... as I don't expect 
> to participate in the OHQP this year... but I have done so in the 
> past, and I am having a hard time seeing how the scoring changes Hank 
> suggests would improve the event.  As K9NW pointed out, there already 
> is a QRP category.
>
> As others have posted, sometimes it can be a lot of extra work to copy 
> a QRP station.  I have worked Hank a number of times when he was 
> running QRP... sometimes conditions are such that copy is very good... 
> but there are times when if I hear a VERY weak 'XX', I take a chance 
> that it is hank, and come back to N8XX.  It usually was Hank, but I 
> think one time I did that, it turned out to be someone else with 'XX' 
> in their call.
>
> However, it can also be pretty hard to work the station with horrible 
> audio, or a lousy fist.  We certainly can't give those folks a 
> multiplier just because they are making it harder for the rest of us 
> to work them.
>
> Hank, probably what I found hardest to understand about your original 
> post, however, was the basis for the apparent low regard with which 
> you hold those hams in Ohio who run the OHQP.  I know you used to live 
> in Ohio, but don't see how that makes it any clearer why you make a 
> statement such as:  "But I'm a stupid enough LID to not understand 
> this axiom of common knowledge of the "Gurus on high" to whom we all 
> bow in obsequious sycophancy, never daring to question their 
> omnipotent and supreme knowledge and wisdom."  That plus your comment 
> about it perhaps taking until 2050 for change to happen, makes me 
> think that you have a history with the folks in Ohio... that I don't 
> need to or care to know about.  But it also makes it look like your 
> post was designed to "roil the waters", not to improve the OHQP.  If 
> the latter is your goal, I would suggest that you drop the jabs at 
> others, and include some good reasons for the scoring changes you 
> suggest.  Reasons that will show how such changes will make the event 
> better.
>
> The notion of a scoring multiplier for those who contact a QRP 
> station, could have the effect of improving scores of the QRP 
> stations, by giving them more contacts, and it would give an incentive 
> to the other stations to risk a drop in rate, to pull out the weaker 
> station.
>
> However, I am not convinced that the OHQP would be a better event 
> because of such a scoring change.  "If it ain't broke... " etc.  If it 
> is "broke", then show us what is "broke", and offer a suggestion that 
> would fix it, but please do so without taking shots at your fellow ham.
>
> Dave - K9FN
>
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 12, 2014 at 2:51 PM, Hank Greeb <n8xx at arrl.org 
> <mailto:n8xx at arrl.org>> wrote:
>
>     Mr. Chasey:
>
>     Caution: It is very dangerous to one's reputation to agree with
>     the nut @ N8XX, lest one be branded, by association with, a LID.
>
>     However, to carry your idea a bit farther, we could adopt a
>     variation of the scoring system used by the Stew Perry Top Band
>     Challenge.  We couple increase the incentive for operating with
>     low power by adding another a multiplier for working as a QRP
>     station.  Thus, in addition to the multiplier for running one's
>     station at <5 watts output, one would get a multiplier of 1 for
>     working a station running >150 watts, a multiplier of 2 for
>     working a station running >5 watts but <150 watts, and a
>     multiplier of 5 for working a station running <5 watts power output.
>
>     A QRP station working a QRP station would get a final power
>     multiplier of 25, a High Power station working another High power
>     station would get a final power multiplier of 1 for that one contact.
>
>     Distance multipliers as used in the Stew Perry "probably" wouldn't
>     be useful, since the objective is to work as many states and
>     counties as possible.
>
>     The Stew Perry power multipliers are 1, 2, and 4, so perhaps the
>     choice above of 1, 2 and 5 might need adjusting.
>
>     It would complicate the job of the scoring team just a bit,
>     because they'd have to put in a factor for each "receiving
>     multiplier" for each entry, but if the Stew Perry can do it, it's
>     only a matter of programming one's silly computer, which would
>     religiously follow the algorithm contained therein.
>
>     Note, I only throw the idea out at this time, in hopes that it
>     would receive something other than a "knee jerk, 'we've never done
>     this before so it must be a screwball idea'"  as most new ideas
>     for the OHQP have been treated in past years.
>
>     I doubt that this will ever receive a fair hearing, because it
>     comes from an outside source (that far away location of New
>     Mexico), and anything foreign is worthless in the sacred halls of
>     the "Gurus on high" to whom we all bow in obsequious sycophancy,
>     never daring to question their omnipotent and supreme knowledge
>     and wisdom.
>
>
>     72/73 de n8xx Hg
>     QRP >99.44% of the time
>
>     On 4/12/2014 10:43 AM, Chasey, David A wrote:
>
>         Hank might actually be on to something here,
>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     OhQP-mail mailing list
>     OhQP-mail at ohqp.org <mailto:OhQP-mail at ohqp.org>
>     http://mail.ohqp.org/mailman/listinfo/ohqp-mail_ohqp.org
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OhQP-mail mailing list
> OhQP-mail at ohqp.org
> http://mail.ohqp.org/mailman/listinfo/ohqp-mail_ohqp.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ohqp.org/pipermail/ohqp-mail_ohqp.org/attachments/20140412/77c448c8/attachment.html>