[OhQP-mail] Suggestion for 2015 (Or later) OHQP
Ian Hill - K8MM
ihk8mm at charter.net
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
> 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
> 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>
> OhQP-mail mailing list
> OhQP-mail at ohqp.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the OhQP-mail