[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] [cq-contest] Golden Goose redux...

To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] [cq-contest] Golden Goose redux...
From: "Rick Kiessig" <kiessig@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2013 13:58:44 +1300
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
Let's extend this example a little further. What if those six operators
share information with each other about your run frequency, and they all
call you, but don't let you know what they're doing? Wouldn't you still
benefit from the actions of *other operators*?

In other words, those "assistants" are not just contributing to your score
when you're connected to a DX cluster. Each station you contact as a result
of the information you receive also has their score increase. While the
other operator is not searching for stations to call like you are, they are
still benefiting from the cluster. In fact, because they are staying on one
frequency, they can receive *many* more contacts as a result of being on the
cluster than you can make by calling stations you find.

Current rules seem to ignore this very basic fact.

My view is that the "assisted" categories are one-sided, artificial and
misleading, in addition to being nearly impossible to enforce consistently.
My first choice would be to abolish the distinction entirely. However,
another option might be to have operators who claim to be "unassisted"
receive zero points while they are running for any QSO where the other
operator is assisted. If that suggestion seems outrageous, and yet you truly
value the idea of operating unassisted, my question is why?

In the end, contesting does not happen on a level playing field, and there's
no reason to have rules that pretend to make it different. Not only are such
rules a waste of the organizer's time, but they make it so no one can
completely trust the results in the end.

73, Rick ZL2HAM

-----Original Message-----
From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of
Dave Lawley
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 4:25 AM
To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] [cq-contest] Golden Goose redux...

Mike W0MU asks "Isn't the internet just another tool in the tool box?"
and Ray ND8L says "packet is nothing more than ANOTHER "relevant technology

Let's consider this. In the next CQWW I decide to enter as single operator.
I operate the rig/PC myself, and I make all the QSOs. But in the next room
to the shack I set up six radios connected to some receive antennas, and
invite six of my pals to come over and tune the radios during the contest.
Every time they find something they think might be of interest to me, most
likely as a multiplier, they write the callsign, time and frequency down on
a piece of paper and come into the shack and put it onto a pile in front of

That's very similar to what happens with DX Cluster, except that far more
than six people are feeding me information! The key point is that it is
*other operators* who are contributing to my score. It is not just another
piece of technology like a memory keyer, it is other people, during the
contest, contributing to the 'single op' entry. That is why, wisely, the
CQWW Committee made a distinction between unassisted and assisted many years
ago when packet cluster started to be used. We have still not heard a
convincing reason to give up that distinction now.

73, Dave G4BUO

CQ-Contest mailing list

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