[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] Assisted / Non Assisted

To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Assisted / Non Assisted
From: Geoffrey Way <wayg@cape-vision.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 21:32:19 -0500
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
Jeff wrote:
"1)  Make one unlimited single operator category..."
        --> "etc." <--

"2) Keep a traditional single operator category."


These are strictly "devil's advocate" questions I'm posing:

"etc." is a pretty wide net. Should one be forced into unlimited if it includes any of the items mentioned in the next series of questions below?

You used the word "traditional", and that's problematic because there is no easy way to draw the line between traditional and "modern". Does traditional mean:

no automated dupe checking? (I remember using dupe sheets...)
no computer logging? (I remember paper logging...)
no automatic CW keying?
no voice keying?
no 2nd radio?
no radio with 2 vfo's? (isn't that kind of the same as above if it has 2 antenna connections?)
no panadapter/bandscope?
no transceivers? (I remember TX/RX PAIRS.)

Put broadly, what exactly constitutes "traditional"? I believe that answer will depend entirely on who's responding to the question, and their answer will vary accordingly.

AND substantially.

I think the problem we face here is two-fold:

On the one hand the hobby is evolving, and developments in technology evolve out in front of and beyond the scope of the rules. The rules are forever stuck with following after (and never quite staying current with) the changes in this hobby that sometimes compel us to re-think the rules given the new features or possibilities available to us in those new technologies. We ALL must face and somehow try to cope with CHANGE.

On the other hand, a fraction of us are very open to and welcome the opportunity for change, and the rest are less so, with some being completely opposed to any change whatsoever.

This might be a set-up for discontent or disappointment for somebody no matter what we do. I think most of us can see that this is the crux of the matter, and who should be expected to suffer the loss? It's going to feel unfair to someone no matter how we move forward, or if we try to avoid change.

Lastly, I believe contest organizers like Randy and others want to do whatever adds the most to increased participation and the greatest level of enjoyment and honest sportsmanship among all the participants.

Technology can help support the recognition of many categories, but we also need to recognize there are limits of time, money, and manpower to administer a contest and maintain the technologies that support administering them. And yet at the same time, they render the complete and final results with greater and greater detail in an ever-decreasing amount of turnaround time, as well.

I am trying in my own way to help certain organizers do just that by offering my skillset if they wish to use it. "Ask not what a contest can do for you, but what you can do for a contest"... ;)


 "Style is a simple way of saying complicated things."  --J. Cocteau

              \    /
           \  |    |   ---Tao.   A chinese character that
           -- |----|                means "Way, Path."
            / |----|
            \ |____|
            /_________                  Geoffrey Way

     websites: http://www.cape-vision.com/wayg/mrep

CQ-Contest mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>