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

[Ray Fallen]

Hank's post and subsequent rantings give credence to the Chinese proverb:

"Big winds come from empty caves."

David...your post was spot on!

Sent from my iPhone

> On Apr 12, 2014, at 5:08 PM, David Bunte <dpbunte at gmail.com> 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> 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
>> 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/20140412/59b8d3c2/attachment-0001.html>