[PaQSO] PAQSO Party Changes

[Bob Nygren]

Hmmm, "lies and excuses?"
         Perhaps, during the RTTY Roundup, N3XLS will monitor the 
number of QSO's he logs with US stations in the RTTY Bandplan segment 
of 7.080 mHz - 7.100 mHz and the number logged below it. Any bets?
         If  RTTY and PSK activity during the QSO Party only takes 
place in the RTTY sub-band, for all I care, those folks can click 
their mice till their index finger falls off.

Regards,

Bob N3RN
(Still campaigning for 2 points for all CW QSO's.)


  At 12:38 PM 12/8/2005, n3xls at juno.com wrote:
>Yes Bob is right,
>It will take a while before the digital modes catch on. besides that 
>the lies and excuses about RTTY operators having no reguard for CW 
>and other opertions is very untrue. unless you have worked and 
>operated a digital only contest you will find that digital 
>contesters are more kind and courtious operators. this adding 
>digital modes to the contest will also hopefully catch the eye of 
>other RTTY and digital contesters to our contest.
>In my expecince all the lies and excuses i been  hearing about 
>digital contesters happens no matter what mode of operation you are 
>working. some times you just can not hear another station! so it 
>sounds like the frequeincy is not in use. Besides that countless 
>times when i was working RTTY contests i have had delibrit CW being 
>sent on my RTTY signal, when i have had the frequeincy for more then 
>a half-hour. it would think this would just be an error and my 
>signal could not be hear however its pretty hard to operate CW right 
>on top of a RTTY signal without the use of something to tune the 
>RTTY signal in.
>So heres the case in point i'm trying to make no one is perfict and 
>anything can happen in amateur radio so please stop making excuses 
>and lets make 2006 PA QSO a fun time.
>Don't forget in just a month away is the ARRL RTTY Round Up now 
>might be the time to bring those digital contest skills and test 
>software before the next PA QSO ;)
>
>-- "Bob Crossland" <Bob.Crossland at telcove.com> wrote:
>And I think Bill has hit the nail right on the head.
>
>It's going to take some time for the digital modes to become anything
>close to resembling a popular mode of operation in the PaQP, and I just
>can't imagine that we're going to get flooded with RTTY signals on 40
>meters in 2006.  And without at least giving it a try to see what
>happens, I find it so very hard to believe that some of our most
>popular, and immensely respected operators of this contest, are pulling
>out just because of a fear that the bands are going to become inundated
>with RTTY signals, and there will be no room to operate CW.
>
>While I welcome the attempt to increase activity by adding the digital
>modes, I really doubt we're going to see a mass exodus of CW and SSB
>operators to the digital side.  Personally, I'm looking at the digital
>mode as somewhere to go on Sunday, when the rates take their normal nose
>dives, and I won't be expecting anything close to 30 or 40 per hour on
>the rate meter.
>
>So before we all get too excited and start looking for other contests to
>work on the 2nd full weekend in October, let's see what comes of this
>new idea and take our best shots at working with it.
>
>Bob, N3FR
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: paqso-bounces at mailman.qth.net
>[mailto:paqso-bounces at mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of Bill G. K3SV
>Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2005 11:07 PM
>To: paqso at mailman.qth.net
>Subject: [PaQSO] PAQSO Party Changes
>
>I don't have a real problem with changing the rules to get more
>interest, although I don't see any need to generate more interest.
>Consider the fact that the PAQSO Party is one (if not the number one)
>QSO party that has stood the test of time.
>
>Possibly the most active QSO party with maybe a close runner being the
>CAL QSO Party (and maybe they would be number one). I've always
>considered the CAL party as the "sister" party to the PA QSO party
>because of the level of activity and the contest dates. When you look at
>the CAL party rules, they are concise and straight forward, not alot of
>"frills" just basic rules for a competitive contest. CW and Phone, keep
>it simple, it ain't broke, don't fix it approach.
>
>I suspect someone will sponsor a trophy or plaque for the digital modes
>and someone will claim the prize, that said, no harm done. If you're
>equipped to run RTTY, you can run 100 per hour, not quite up to the CW
>or phone rates, but 100 per hour is not hard to do if the stations are
>calling you. I doubt that 10 per hour will hit many operators rate
>meter. If you look at top operators QSO totals, they won't have much
>time or incentive to check the digital modes for big numbers of "fresh
>meat" as it's called.
>
>Will I stop operating the QSO party, nope, I really look forward to it.
>I'll operate CW only, or Phone and CW and have fun with everyone else
>that weekend. I support the sponsors and the club that runs the Party,
>and if the log checkers and bean counters want to keep track of the
>added classes and entry categories....more power to 'em. Having scored
>and judged contests, I don't envy the task.
>
>I think the QSO Party has a life of it's own and will live on for many,
>many years.  73 Bill _______________________________________________
>PaQSO mailing list
>PaQSO at mailman.qth.net
>http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/paqso
>_______________________________________________
>PaQSO mailing list
>PaQSO at mailman.qth.net
>http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/paqso
>_______________________________________________
>PaQSO mailing list
>PaQSO at mailman.qth.net
>http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/paqso