Martin,
Local church sign says "Worry is a total waste of imagination". I think
there is too much worry over whether someone might have done something to
cheat and not enough time spent trying to improve the efficiency of the
radio station and operator combination..
There will always be cheaters and there will always be some level of
enforcement for the purpose of minimizing the cheating. On April 15 the
income taxes are due in the US and the Internal Revenue Service has the
ability to audit any return. The higher the income and the more claimed as
deductions from taxable income, the more likely it will be audited. The
threat of the penalties including the possibility of going to jail is
enough to keep most people honest. A good audit on the top scores in a
radio contest and severe penalties for intentional cheating will accomplish
the same thing.
The only statements I cannot accept from some have to do with assistance
being something that would cause one's score to be lower. As you mentioned
you have to be careful how you use it. That is sure, just the same as you
have to be careful when you decide to go to sleep and how long to sleep and
where to point your antenna when the band is open to Europe from the USA,
etc.. If someone cannot control themselves - realize they have never
worked a 4S7 on 15m CW, switch from contesting to DXing, and stay in a
pile-up for an hour when the guy is S4 and working Europe at 150 per hour -
they would have been better off not having the assistance and hoping they
did not stumble across the 4S7.
However, an SO2R operator on CW with Skimmer (and it should be a given that
he has a good station that can break pileups) can work nearly every new
multiplier that shows up on the other band instead of tuning around working
a lot of duplicate countries and occasionally stumbling over a new
multiplier. This is a huge advantage, and it doesn't matter where you are
located on the globe in order to realize that advantage. There will be
plenty of entrants, if everyone were allowed to use assistance, who will
use it wisely and maximize the score. The winning scores will, almost
without exception, be higher than any of the scores from ones who did not
have assistance.
Your command of the English language is great! I'm sure it is somewhat of
a struggle to correspond in an language that is not your primary one. I
wish I had a second language.
Adios...Stan, K5GO
.
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 9:17 AM, Martin , LU5DX <lu5dx@lucg.com.ar> wrote:
> Howdy Stan.
>
> Thanks for your note.
>
> Actually it is quite complex for me to explain well since I need to
> translate my thoughts from Spanish to English and most of the time I'm
> pretty sure I end up not saying exactly what I originally meant in my own
> language.
>
> But let me try.
>
> I really don't care much whether WRTC allows assistance during the
> competition or not. It could be totally okay not to do so, since there is a
> referee present during the whole contest at each of the 52 stations. So you
> can really prove no one was using packet, phones, VHF links, whatsoever to
> take and unfair advantage over the other competitors.
>
> Now, during the qualifying run, there is no way at all for organizers to
> prove that. In fact using or not using packet assistance has no impact in
> causal or part time contesters at all, but it certainly has a big impact
> where close races take place among top entrants.
> E.g. Two SOAB pretty close to each other. One Ends up with 11 M the other
> with 11.2. How can we tell none of them did not use packet even to find
> 5-10 mults over the weekend. If they are smart, we simply cannot tell at
> all. Top notch contesters are indeed very smart people when it comes to
> achieving more and more points.
>
> With assisted being penalized respect to SO, of course ops avoid entering
> that category and they enter SO. Some will "kill" for a spot in WRTC. Even
> friends fight hard for a spot, using all possible means, like avoiding
> competition and things like that. And of course some use packet, very
> cleverly, to take an unfair advantage.
>
> And you bring up a great point too! How come MS scores higher than
> SOAB(A). I usually come close to MS scores in my area or even higher like
> in 2012 CQ WWCW. MS teams consists of 4-6 ops also using packet. They can
> achieve 1000 points and I get 800. I train my brain, body to stay awake
> during the whole test, take time off the job to be well rested for the
> event, but still the fact that I use packet removes most of the merit of
> what I and others do by entering SOAB(A).
>
> I've been asking this to WRTC organizers since long ago. Some said, well
> MS represents more "the spirit of WRTC" since it's a multi op
> environment...well okay, but if you want to "mimic" the spirit of the
> actual WRTC then make sure they don't use packet either...right? But that
> is not the case.
>
> So, all in all, it is just a bunch of forced arguments to penalize those
> who honestly declare that they use dx spotting to determine when or where
> to call a mult or not, and indirectly it impacts on WRTC itself, since you
> cannot say all of the ops there did not use packet at all. Not only for
> chasing mults, but also for a lot other activities packet or dx spots can
> be used for: monitoring openings, monitoring the competition, finding less
> crowded portions of the band, etc, etc.
>
> About your statement about assisted involving less skills than SO to
> achieve certain score, it really depends on how you look at it. And it
> really depends from where activity takes place. I can tell for sure it is a
> lot easier to achieve a higher score SOAB from zone 13 than it is using
> packet. It would really take long to explain, but the number of multipliers
> involved (or better said available down here), the hour of opening to
> certain locations, etc., make it easier for you to fully concentrate on
> running and passing mults calling you than actually devoting time to
> calling big packet generated pile ups.
>
> Packet presents you a a lot of information, but you still need to be very
> careful at how you take advantage of it. In some cases reducing focus on
> the running aspect of the operation is detrimental to the score, so there
> is a balance that is really hard to maintain, you need to know a whole lot
> about the details of propagation, to make sure you don't waste time calling
> a mult that's showing in the band map that may be really easy to work half
> an hour later.
>
> If you ask me, in my case SO is a lot simpler than SOAB(A). Again, this is
> my case. To me tuning the second radio's VFO and working what I hear quite
> loud is a lot simpler than having a bunch of information and deciding what
> is best for the operation. In fact lots of mults (juicy muts) are found
> easier during my operations, not by looking at the band map, but tuning the
> VFO.
>
> Nonetheless, if you put two good ops side by side, one with packet and one
> without it. The one using it will be able to make a difference (even a
> small difference) in the long run. If you put one good op and one average
> op. The good one without packet and the average one using it; the Single op
> will still certainly beat the one with spotting assistance.
>
> Vy 73.
>
>
> Martin, LU5DX
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 11:29 AM, Stan Stockton <wa5rtg@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Martin,
>>
>> I wonder why you believe it is a mistake for assisted to be "penalized"
>> relative to unassisted? I would agree you would have a point if you also
>> thought the WRTC competition should include assistance.
>>
>> The fact is that an operator with less ability will score closer to a
>> better operator if both use assistance than if neither uses assistance.
>> Running stations on one radio, working new stations and new multipliers on
>> another, and moving stations from one band to another takes a lot more
>> skill than clicking on spots that are loaded by skimmer and knocking them
>> off one after the other. As the activity is automated or includes the
>> ability to point and shoot, the station's antenna performancat relative to
>> pure operator talent becomes more and more important.
>>
>> The WRTC allows up to six qualifying entries (half) with full points in
>> the MS category where the operator can use assistance and actually doesn't
>> even have to make but one contact in a winning effort for it to count. It
>> should be relatively easy to get half the maximum number of points needed.
>> At some point in time, however, the successful qualifier has to prove
>> him/herself as a by doing well without the assistance of skimmers and
>> packet in a few contests.
>>
>> 73...Stan, K5GO
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>>
>> On Jan 31, 2013, at 5:41 AM, "Martin , LU5DX" <lu5dx@lucg.com.ar> wrote:
>>
>> > Big big mistake by WRTC committee.
>> > But well, they rule the game.
>> > There are creepy situations about this.
>> > Too sad.
>> >
>> > 73.
>> >
>> > Martin, LU5DX
>> >
>> > On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 12:04 AM, <kenlow7@aol.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>> From: Hal Kennedy <halken@comcast.net>
>> >>>> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 11:09 AM, Hal Kennedy wrote:>
>> >>>> Meanwhile, it is accepted that to date the best SO (A)
>> >>>> scores continue to besomewhat below the best SO scores.
>> >>
>> >> Hal -
>> >>
>> >> There's an easy 4-letter explanation for that: W-R-T-C.
>> >>
>> >> As long as the WRTC qualifying rules penalize Assisted entries,
>> there's no
>> >> way the top guys will choose that category for their Single-Op efforts.
>> >> This has been the case ever since people recognized WRTC was a truer
>> test
>> >> of operating ability since there is a referee present at all times.
>> >>
>> >> In recent years, several excellent SO2R operators have already
>> >> demonstrated what happens when they enter Assisted in a major 48-hour
>> >> contest: the multiplier count increases by 20% and they blow away the
>> >> Unassisted entries.
>> >>
>> >> 73,
>> >>
>> >> Ken KE3X
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> 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
|