[MiQP-Mail] Fwd: [ILQSO] State QSO party questions

[k8gt at twmi.rr.com]

Pfui,   I don't think that MI or OH folks are any less friendly than IL
and that phony baloney "park at 4 corners" is a PITA for logging, since
you only get 1 QSO credit and 4 mults.  I guess if you actually parked
right in the intersection of the two roads then you could claim that. 
As far as I'm concerned 1 QSO and 1 Mult.  The way some of the stations
in the OKQP did it I didn't know that there were multiple counties
coming and after the first one could have tuned away, but I was lucky I
was a little slow and heard him sending more instead of a QRZ.

I'm sorry, if I want a "bare knuckle, knock down, drag 'em out" type
contest and log checking, I enter the major contests, but these are QSO
"Parties" which are used to entice newbies and non contesters to get
involved in a casual operating "event" and learn the basics of
contesting.  If you then "draw blood" in checking their logs, they may
just find something else to do next year.

73, Gerry K8GT  
Plans for MIQP still being formulated, including a 1x1 call, since my
suffix first letter isn't included in "Mackinac".

----- Original Message -----
From: Hank Greeb <n8xx at arrl.org>
Date: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 2:45 pm
Subject: Re: [MiQP-Mail] Fwd: [ILQSO] State QSO party questions
To: MIQP-Mail <MIQP-Mail at miqp.org>

> 
> ----- Comments initially sent via the Illinois QSO Party Reflector -
> -------
> 
> Why should I be horribly biased toward the Michigan QSO Party.  I 
> personally like the Illinois QSO party better - considerably better.
> 
> Why do I like it?
> 
> First of all, the folks in Illinois are a very friendly group.  
> They 
> welcomed me with open arms, offered excellent answers to stupid 
> questions from a ILQP newbie.
> 
> Second - they have this "silly rule" (at least considered silly by 
> MiQP 
> and OQP contest committee) which allowed me to park at the 
> intersection 
> of four counties and count four contacts for each contact.  That 
> really 
> filled up the log sheet quickly.  Michigan had a similar rule some 
> time 
> back, but dropped it for whatever reason.
> 
> Third - they really check the logs.  This was the first State QSO 
> party 
> where I had a list of "busted QSO's."  I've never had a busted QSO 
> in 
> Michigan nor Ohio, two places where I've operated as a fixed 
> station.  
> I'll be more careful in copying next year, and believe that this is 
> a 
> "real" contest vs a typical State QSO party.
> 
> Fourth - Eight hours was enough, especially in 2006, with 
> temperatures 
> in the 40's during the day, 30's as it was getting dark, and 25+ 
> MPH 
> winds, when I was prepared for 60°F+ daytime and high 50°F after 
> dark, 
> more typical.  I did bring a heavy coat, and had help from a local 
> to 
> deflect some of the wind from my dining canopy, but next year I'm 
> bringing a tent in addition to the dining canopy, just in case.  
> When 
> you're outside for 12 hours, like we do in the OQP, it gets to be a 
> quite long day, and tearing everything  down after midnight is 
> somewhat 
> of a chore.
> 
> Michigan and Ohio QSO parties seem to be more "set in their ways" - 
> they 
> have made a few accommodations and changes to their rules, but they 
> seem 
> to have the mindset of a "die hard contest group," and things to 
> attract 
> and encourage more casual operators aren't included in their rules.
> 
> I'll definitely be back at the corner of  CHAM/DOUG/EDGR/VERM in 
> Illinois during the 2007 ILQP!
> 
> =========================
> 
> Another State QSO party which seemed very interesting was the 
> OKlahoma 
> QSO party.  They enlisted 21+ operators to get 1x1 calls, and had a 
> special incentive to spell OKLAHOMA from contacts with these 1x1 
> stations.  It didn't seem to have anywhere near the level of in 
> state 
> activity as Michigan, Ohio, or Illinois, which was a bit of a 
> downer, 
> but they did allow parking at the intersection of 2, 3 or 4 
> counties.  
> The mobiles/portables doing this had to make separate contacts 
> (different from ILQP) but they'd send them rapid fire.  This 
> interested 
> lots of out of state stations.  If the OKDXA can enthuse more than 
> a 
> handful of in state stations, this could turn into a very nice QSO 
> Party, and give folks in Ohio, Michigan, and other more organized 
> state 
> QP's.  So far I've not been able to encourage more than a handful 
> of 
> folks to sign up for 1 x 1 calls in Ohio or Michigan for their 
> respective QSO Parties.
> 
> 73 de n8xx Hg
> 
> John Geiger wrote:
> 
> >Here are a couple of questions to obtain a completely non-
> scientific, 
> unreliable poll about state QSO parties for an article I am 
> writing.  I 
> would appreciate feedback if you feel so moved.
> >
> >Here are the questions:
> >
> >1. Other than your own (which you should be horribly biased in 
> favor 
> of), what is your favorite state QSO party?
> >
> >2. In your opinion, what makes a good state QSO party.
> >
> >Thanks in advance for any answers I receive.
> >
> >73s John W5TD
> >  
> >
> 
> >  
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> MiQP-Mail mailing list
> MiQP-Mail at miqp.org
> http://mail.miqp.org/mailman/listinfo/miqp-mail_miqp.org
>