Well, just my cents to level the balance of arguments a bit.
I vote for combining Assisted and non-Assisted. Why:
1. I personally don't mind in taking part in either category - skillful
SO2R, good pile up management and 48 hour will-power will prevail one way or
the other.
2. Both ways I can have as much fun. Tuning the 2nd/3rd VFO dial or fighting
in spot pile ups (by the way, the spot pile ups will be smaller and thus
tuning will be more effective if everyone is assisted!).
3. I am mostly interested in SSB and there tuning is still very important
now as cluster does not give you all the mults.
4. I am bothered by having two layers of identical categories in CQWW that
in my mind diminishes the value of both categories and creates unnecessary
controversy and arguments/accusations.
5. Obligation to check illegal use of assistance takes huge effort from
contest organizers and delays the contest results. It is a hard job and
albeit there are good tools (opposite to what some of you are saying) and it
is possible to determine users of assistance with great (almost 100%)
likelyhood, it requires a lot of work and commitment and requires will-power
of a kind that only unfortunately a few have, to make tough calls. Randy can
make those calls, but it is a big burden on one person and I hate to put him
in this position. Unfortunately CQWW today does not have people/volunteers
ready to actually devote time and be able to objectively judge controversial
cases of potential rule violators without putting their prejudices and
personal agendas first.
And I am quite sure (anyone wants to bet?) the number of participants would
hardly be affected by combining the categories.
After all it is purely up to the organizers to decide, but I say go for it
for all practical reasons (while totally appreciating the plea of those die
hard manual S&Pers...)
73
Tonno
Es5tv
-----Original Message-----
From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of
Pete Smith N4ZR
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 7:37 PM
To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Non-assisted & Assisted
I *think* PY5EG was agreeing with keeping them separate. Oms?
73, Pete N4ZR
Check out the Reverse Beacon Network at
http://reversebeacon.net,
blog at reversebeacon.blogspot.com.
For spots, please go to your favorite
ARC V6 or VE7CC DX cluster node.
On 1/28/2013 8:51 AM, kd4d@comcast.net wrote:
> Hi Jim:
>
> K5ZD, PY5EG, and LU5DX, among many others, ARE saying "get rid of assisted
categories."
>
> To quote their recent e-mails:
>
> K5ZD: >> For these contests where there is no assisted category,
> instead of making yet another category, why not just allow single ops to
use assistance?!
>
> LU5DX: >> Amen!!!!!!!
>
> PY5EG: >> I totaly agree
> I always fight for that on CQ Committee
>
>>> Randy,
>>>
>>> I still think you are missing the point. No one is saying not to
>>> have assisted categories. [...]
>>>
>>> 73,
>>>
>>> Jim, K4QPL
> 73,
>
> Mark, KD4D
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|