[Fwd: Re: [PaQSO] Digital Modes]

Wed Dec 7 12:12:34 EST 2005

Here's my missive on the topic:

I abhor the statement "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

I applaud Mike's/NARC's attempts to improve the event.

Lets see what happens.

Contesters are an inventive and resourceful bunch......those who wish to 
partake of the RTTY/PSK opportunity will find a way to get around the 
logging challenges or other issues that may crop up.

As KB3EIA has stated, there may be other unintended results, but we'll 
never know if they don't try.

My feelings (stated several times previously) is to h*ll with the records. 
If this, or other future changes, have the effect of adding 10% or 50% to 
all the records over the next few  years (I would say about as likely as 
us reaching a sun spot max for this weekends 10 meter 
contest)........good. Some new people will hold some of those records and 
that should generate some excitement. I hold the CMB county record. If it 
should fall I'd welcome the incentive to improve my efforts to reclaim it, 
or create other new records.

I have heard from my contacts a Harrah's Sports Book in Vegas that the 
early over/under line as far as the total number of RTTY/PSK Q's expected 
in 2006 is 500. <grin> (This is not a solicitation for bets)

Finally, I want to make one comment about CW scoring. Someone along the 
line in this thread made the comment that 80 and 160 meter CW Q's get 2 
points because it's harder to make those Q's........city dwellers have a 
harder time erecting antennae to cover those bands, (or words to that 
effect......I'm not trying to quote exactly). Well, if that's the case, 
then we are penalizing the city dweller as much as rewarding the "country" 
(?) dweller. But, in point of fact, it has been stated (more than once, I 
think) that the reason 80 and 160M CW Q's are worth 2 points is due to a 
previous chairman's "love" of CW on those bands. I don't know for sure 
when that "change" happened...........1970's?????.......but was there 
great wailing and gnashing of teeth back then? 

(Because of how emails sometimes are read very differently than what is 
intended by the writer, let me state that I am neither faulting Doug, 
W3HDH, for those changes, nor am I suggesting we should send one of the 
mobile's out to (MO??? ILL???) to kidnap him and bring him back. I'm just 
stating what I believe to be fact to make a point. that point being that 
changes have happened in the past, and the event seems to have survived).

You won't hear me on RTTY or PSK next year, but good luck to any/all that 
give it a try.

Ed/WA3SES

paqso-bounces at mailman.qth.net wrote on 12/07/2005 11:14:42 AM:

> 
> 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 -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PaQSO mailing list
> PaQSO at mailman.qth.net
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/paqso