[PaQSO] Re: PaQSO Digest, Vol 36, Issue 6

Tue Apr 10 18:05:33 EDT 2007

paqso-request at mailman.qth.net wrote:

>Send PaQSO mailing list submissions to
>	paqso at mailman.qth.net
>
>To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>	http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/paqso
>or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>	paqso-request at mailman.qth.net
>
>You can reach the person managing the list at
>	paqso-owner at mailman.qth.net
>
>When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>than "Re: Contents of PaQSO digest..."
>
>
>Today's Topics:
>
>   1. Multi-location Bonus Station (bob at reconstructinghistory.com)
>   2. 07 PQP M/Everywhere vs M/Mode (Al Zelna)
>   3. It's just a game! (STATELOT5 at aol.com)
>   4. Re: Multi-location Bonus Station, et al (Bill Gallagher)
>   5. RE: Multi-location Bonus Station (Ron Notarius W3WN)
>   6. Comments from the Grump (Raymond P. Bilger)
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Message: 1
>Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2007 07:27:09 -0400 (EDT)
>From: <bob at reconstructinghistory.com>
>Subject: [PaQSO] Multi-location Bonus Station
>To: PaQSO at mailman.qth.net
>Message-ID: <1176118028.86129 at reconstructinghistory.com>
>
>Okay, now I've read the rants and the responses, it's time to weigh in.  
>
>But first, a little background.  I'm relatively new to all this.  PAQP06 was my first QSO party participation since (maybe) 1996.  I'm new to the field, in other words.  So bear with me, and look at what I'm saying as dispassionate analysis from a newcomer.
>
>The multiple bonus stations gave me no joy in 2006.  For one, my logging software kept flagging DUPE.  If I could find the Cab file, I'd see if it stripped all the dupes, but I can't; it sticks in my mind that it did.  For two, yeah, I added up all the bonus contacts and put them on the summary sheet, but that added a layer of needless complexity. 
>
>So does physically mailing anything to the contest organizers, but that's another argument.  That just doesn't make any sense to me.  It's the only contest I've entered which has that requirement.  For the record, can someone tell me why?
>
>Maybe I'm one of these cornsarned lazy Socialist whippersnappers, but when I export a Cab file, I want that to be my entry.  Period.  I don't want to massage it, I don't want to use a pencil to recompute my bonus points, I don't want to print a form and fill it out and mail it; I want to export a Cab file, maybe a summary file, email it/them to the sponsor, and move on with my life.
>
>KISS works.  If you must have a bonus station, keep it simple: points awarded per QSO, one Q per callsign per band/mode.  In other words, one station = one callsign, just like everyone else.  Just instead of 1 or 2 points, you get the bonus.  That makes for a maximum of X points, since there are a finite number of band/mode combinations.  
>
>For all my bellyachin', props to the organizers for taking all this hassle on themselves.  Me, I wouldn't want the agg.  But thank Gawd for sado-masochists like you, or else none of us could have any fun complaining about how goofy your rules are. =)
>
>Cheers,
>
>Bob AB3EI (formerly N3OYA)
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 2
>Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2007 09:22:07 -0400
>From: Al Zelna <mr.mri at epix.net>
>Subject: [PaQSO] 07 PQP M/Everywhere vs M/Mode
>To: PA QSO Reflector <paqso at mailman.qth.net>
>Message-ID: <461A3DFF.3050102 at epix.net>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
>If my math is correct, the amount of gripes/vents are winning over the
>kudos/constructive statements... again.  I'm not surprised, but I am
>going over to the dark side on this topic.
>
>I argued for the inclusion of Digital Modes, I defended against the
>nay-sayers, and I say change is good, but too much change too fast is
>chaos.  The NARC should embrace the current change (Digital) and find a
>way to promote it in 2007.  The FCC changes should allow for more
>operators to be on the air for this year's contest.  Why not feed upon
>M/Mode, instead of this M/Everywhere concept?  I doubt the "newbies"
>will jump at the chance to operate CW in a contest.
>
>So why not set your stations wherever you choose, but make them
>dedicated to a single Mode.  Multiple stations, multiple locations,
>guaranteed bonus points per mode, one call sign, no chance for dupes, no
>confusion for participants, no problems with logging, just lots of
>commas in a single sentence. ;-)
>
>Now how 'bout that?  A new twist on a new twist, that makes it kind of
>like what it used to be.
>
>
>Al, N3KAE
>
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 3
>Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2007 10:23:06 EDT
>From: STATELOT5 at aol.com
>Subject: [PaQSO] It's just a game!
>To: PaQSO at mailman.qth.net
>Message-ID: <c1c.13146aac.334ba64a at aol.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
>
>WOW!  This reminds me of listening to all of the parents who  gripe about the 
>Little League baseball coach but none of them would ever  consider stepping 
>up and doing the job. Be thankful that someone WANTS to  be coach!  Granted, 
>feedback WAS requested which was probably a  mistake.  Just let the sponsor make 
>the rules and then get on the air and  MAKE CONTACTS!  The PAQP seems to 
>attract a lot of activity.   What could be better?   I think that it's the little 
>"prizes" of  counties, rovers, mobiles, bonus stations(1 or 50), spelling 
>PUNXATAWNEY or  whatever that make this FUN!  If you somehow feel like things are 
>unfair  for your particular situation then you have just realized a FACT of 
>LIFE!   Do your best and have fun anyway! After all it's just a game!
> 
>73,  Steve
>
>
>
>************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 4
>Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2007 13:06:00 -0700 (PDT)
>From: Bill Gallagher <wa3ra at yahoo.com>
>Subject: Re: [PaQSO] Multi-location Bonus Station, et al
>To: PaQSO at mailman.qth.net
>Message-ID: <492110.9286.qm at web30606.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ascii
>
>I actually thought the multi-location Bonus Station was kinda fun!
>
>Some of us mail logs because we have so many of them...there have been years where I have had 40 (yes FORTY) separate logs to submit. It simply isn't practical to log using a computer when running a true mobile.
>
>It looks like my logs got lost for the 2006 'test. It wasn't my best year, around 70k points or so...and there was no way that I was going to re-enter all of those logs again (not to mention the headaches for the guys entering them), so I just let it glide.
>
>It doesn't bother me that I won't see certificates for the two counties that I won...I had fun during the contest, and that is all that matters.
>
>I do think that digital should be limited to ONE mode, operator's choice. Give it a year or two, and the mode of choice will make itself clear.
>
>I like one point for phone, two points for CW across the board. It makes comparison to earlier years more difficult, score-wise, but it makes scoring easier, and the records will be consistant going forward.
>
>Hey, it's just a contest, and its supposed to be FUN !!!
>
>Bill WA3RA
>
>
> 
>____________________________________________________________________________________
>We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love 
>(and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list.
>http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/265 
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 5
>Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2007 17:31:12 -0400
>From: "Ron Notarius W3WN" <wn3vaw at verizon.net>
>Subject: RE: [PaQSO] Multi-location Bonus Station
>To: <PaQSO at mailman.qth.net>
>Message-ID: <NKBBLNDDGMBDMIPLDENKOEMAEJAA.wn3vaw at verizon.net>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
>This is why I suggested that anyone who's software couldn't handle the bonus
>station in multiple counties simply treat it as a Rover for logging purposes
>only.
>
>I seem to recall being skewered by quite a few for that suggestion who
>informed me that the bonus station wasn't a Rover.
>
>We are our own worst enemy sometimes!
>
>73
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: paqso-bounces at mailman.qth.net
>[mailto:paqso-bounces at mailman.qth.net]On Behalf Of
>bob at reconstructinghistory.com
>Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 7:27 AM
>To: PaQSO at mailman.qth.net
>Subject: [PaQSO] Multi-location Bonus Station
>
><clip>
>The multiple bonus stations gave me no joy in 2006.  For one, my logging
>software kept flagging DUPE.  If I could find the Cab file, I'd see if it
>stripped all the dupes, but I can't; it sticks in my mind that it did.  For
>two, yeah, I added up all the bonus contacts and put them on the summary
>sheet, but that added a layer of needless complexity.
><clip>
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 6
>Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2007 22:50:00 -0400
>From: "Raymond P. Bilger" <w3tdf at juno.com>
>Subject: [PaQSO] Comments from the Grump
>To: PAQSO at mailman.qth.net
>Message-ID: <20070409.225002.2336.1.w3tdf at juno.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain
>
>PAQPers,
>
>First I want to acknowledge the supportive suggestions by
>J.P., N3GWR, and Larry, KA3AFY.
>
>Secondly, I don't really take exception to either the Single site
>Multi/multi, or the Multi County stations.
>
>Several years ago, we of the QCWA-Chapter 17 club attempted
>to be awarded the bonus designee, but apparently another
>club got their hat in the ring ahead of us. As President of the
>club I had a plan to activate 6 or 7 counties.
>
>As for J.P.'s suggestion, I would not try to go it alone from
>some portable location, which is my forte. And, to do a
>multi/multi from one location would interupt my desire to be
>portable from some seemingly rare county, which gives me
>great pleasure.  As most of you are probably aware, I have
>operated portable 18 of the last 19 parties, in 17 different
>counties.
>
>Mike, I'll say this, I don't care how you do it, I'll be in there,
>but I don't care for the one by one special event call idea.
>
>Nuff said.  I just counted my calendar. 186 days to go.
>
>Remember, when it stops being fun it's time to hit the switch.
>
>73/88
>de
>The Grump
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>PaQSO mailing list
>PaQSO at mailman.qth.net
>http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/paqso
>
>
>End of PaQSO Digest, Vol 36, Issue 6
>************************************
>
>
>  
>
 I suspect the real reason for the out-moded mail in requirement is that 
it is more likely you will stick in a buck or ten if you have the 
envelope ready to mail. I know I do, and probably would not if 
everything went by email. (But if they had a paypal check off box... 
then maybe)

As for the question, I vote for the old simple multiop, single county bonus.