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

[Hank Greeb]

Naww, the scoring team doesn't care what the software calculates.

Besides, having /QRP or /LOW or /HIGH at the end of each call letter 
would brand us as LIDS who use a power level to ID ourselves.

I NEVER, EVER, NO NEVER use /QRP, and I'd say that >99.44% of the 
operators who choose to operate with 5 watts or less power do NOT use 
the /QRP suffix.

I often cross out the "claimed score" part of my entry, because I know 
that the contest adjudicating committee will recalculate it, subtracting 
the errors in logging which I do in >99.44% of the times.  It's rare I 
have a "golden log."

72/73 de n8xx Hg
QRP >99.44% of the time

On 4/12/2014 9:50 PM, paulhurm at gmail.com wrote:
>
> Remember that if we want to give extra credit to someone who **works** 
> a QRP station then we are going to have to change the contest exchange 
> to include the power level. Such a change would also require all of 
> the programmers who produce our logging software to make the 
> appropriate changes.
>
> There was a comment "The only thing the power mults would do is allow 
> for an "overall winner" of the party...". Personally I don't think 
> there is any way to get a single fair "overall" winner. If we wanted 
> to try, how would we adjust for those of us who do not have steerable 
> antennas? Those make a pretty big difference as well, probably as much 
> as the difference between 5 and 100 watts.
>
> Another comment was "All participating stations have a level playing 
> field as far as receive, so the QRP station can hear as well as anyone 
> else." Sorry but I disagree here too since wire vs steerable/gain 
> antennas makes a big difference. The ability to copy any station 
> depends upon many more things than just the transmitter power of the 
> other guy.
>
> For myself, I like to compare my efforts from year to year. 
> Lengthening the exchange will negate previous years efforts for 
> comparisons. Even though adding a power level to the exchange doesn't 
> add all that much time to a QSO, it does add up after a while and 
> might possibly cut down on the total number of QSOs. Oops, the mobile 
> moved, there went that last mult I needed.
>
> (Some tongue in cheek comments):
>
> If we want a truly level operating field then we should all be forced 
> to use the same radio / antennas.
>
> You have to put up a beam for me since I don't have one.
>
> Why not force us all to do all CW contacts without a narrow filter?
>
> No computer aids for anything but logging.
>
> No PC keying or memory keyers, everything manually.
>
> Why 2 points per CW QSO anyhow. Why are they more important? (I'm 
> 99.9% CW BTW)
>
> I'm sure I could come up with more...
>
> Yes, I have operated QRP in OQP. Personally, I would like to see 
> results much sooner and the "per county results map" get updated long 
> before requiring any rules changes without good/convincing arguments 
> behind them.
>
> And I also appreciate the thoughts behind Dave, K9FN's post.
>
> Paul, N8OT
>
> paulhurm at gmail.com <mailto:paulhurm at gmail.com>
>
> * My World War One photography project
>
> www.typicalfrenchkiddies.com -or- 
> www.facebook.com/typicalfrenchkiddies 
> <http://www.facebook.com/typicalfrenchkiddies>
>
> * Radio Astronomy
>
> www.naapo.org <http://www.naapo.org>
>
> * My article about Field Day 2012
>
> www.arrl.org/winning-field-day-with-one-contact 
> <http://www.arrl.org/winning-field-day-with-one-contact>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ohqp.org/pipermail/ohqp-mail_ohqp.org/attachments/20140413/4ee1dd7e/attachment.html>