Martin Monsalvo, LU5DX wrote:
>The parallel argument does not work at all. QRP is plenty of honest people.
>Not so the Low power categories, but well, that should be another problem to
>be taken care of.
>
>
IMHO the comparison between power- and cluster-categories is perfectly
valid. One of the standard arguments for abolishong
unassisted-categories is "Cheating with cluster/packet cannot be
proven". That sounds like double standards in comparison to continuing
power categories - which are completely out of any reasonable control
and only up to operator´s honesty. It is less difficult to chase
cluster-cheating (see DJ1YFK´s recent statistics) than to prove
power-cheating.
But of course organizers are free (and perhaps forced) to do what is
more popular: allowing casual and competetive participants assistance by
others via cluster/packet (and relieve the otherwise necessary strain
for their VFO-tuning finger) and at the same time keeping up with the
popular LP-categories. It may be justified with a supposed bigger impact
of power than with that of external assistance. But arguments based on
chances to prevent cheating sound more like: "We can´t nail those
power-cheaters (and there also qrp-results making one think a lot), so
we do want to nail those packet-cheaters. Seems like there is no easy
escape from the mild shizophrenia of a competition (it´s called contest
not activity weekend) based more or less on the assumption of honesty.
73, Chris
(www.dl8mbs.de)
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|