[Fwd: Re: [PaQSO] Digital Modes]

[Michael Coslo]

On Dec 7, 2005,  Bob Nygren wrote:

At 03:58 PM 12/6/2005, Michael Coslo wrote in response to Jim N3PBH:
( IN part, MUCH deleted for brevity!)



>         It is also important to point out that the PAQSO Party  
> encourages
> CW. That is why we give CW contacts more points. We *want* people to
> use the mode and continue using the mode.
>

 >Then again I suggest 3 points per CW QSO. 3 Points will encourage  
CW!  By awarding >1.5 points for CW and 2 points for PSK,( except for  
80 meters), you penalize the CW
 > ops.


	This is not done to penalize anyone. Our point structure is based on  
encouraging participation. It would be like saying that we are  
penalizing SSB since we only give them one point.

	Plus, I would probably be lynched if I made CW contacts 3 points!     
8^)


>> That means if someone is on one mode,
>> they are not someplace else.  You rob Peter to pay
>> Paul, in other words.  Will there be a net gain, or
>> will digital only make up for points you will lose
>> elsewhere?  Will you come out ahead or lose?
>>
>
> We never know until we try, do we? But I have heard plenty of
> complaints about working the bands dry by Sunday, and getting bored.
> Maybe we can alleviate the boredom.
>

 >Please convince me it's a good idea to coninue to rove. I tear down  
a perfectly good >station Saturday night, to set it up again Sunday  
morning so that many folks will get a >chance at a rare one.

	I wouldn't be the one to convince you. I think that the Rover  
concept is a little strange to begin with. If I were to run Rover, I  
would make the obligatory 10 QSOs, move to a new location to pick up  
that 500 points, and then repeat that as often as needed. Use an  
antenna that can be set up and taken down easily.


 > Now I'm afraid all I'll hear is computers exchanging serial  
numbers. Is this the end of the >rover class?

	I would like a little more info on why it would be the end of the  
Rover class. I'm always on the lookout for untended consequences, but  
I'm not sure what you mean.



>> This will add another layer of complexity.  The bonus
>> station will now need to get digital equipment, as
>> well as others who wish to be competitive.  Ask now,
>> Christmas is coming!
>>
>> I am mainly trying to bring up a few points for
>> discussion.  This is obviously a big deal, so it
>> should be discussed by all participants.
>>
>
>         Not a problem. I do read all the posts, and want to get  
> feedback.
> I'm a firm believer in the law of unintended consequences.
>

 >Maybe a solicitation for comments, or an on-line poll to gather  
information before >making a major change would have been a good idea.

	I've read all the posts regarding digital modes the past few years.  
We have a pretty good idea on what peoples opinions are. There are  
some people who are adamantly against digital modes, and there are  
people wildly enthusiastic about them.

	- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -