A tiger isn't going to lose his stripes just because you took away the
distinction between assisted and non-assisted.
Cheaters will cheat. If it's not by claiming unassisted, it will be by using
too much power, by listening during off times, by using an Internet-linked
remote receiver, by organizing schedules via email and any number of other
cheats.
Eliminating an important distinction between two different skill sets is
like advocating intercourse to combat teen pregnancy.
One isn't better than the other. They're just different. Better scores
through assistance are not automatic. If you sacrifice too much rate to
chase spots, you're losing points, not gaining them. If you focus too much
on rate when you should be chasing spots, you're losing points, not gaining
them.
Look at the recent CQ WW DX SSB claimed scores: in all cases, unassisted
operations soundly outscored assisted. Does 8P5A have that much better
conditions than PX5E? Enough to account for 4.5 million points? Is PX5E a
lid? I don't think so.
Given PEI's small size and surrounding saltwater, I'd rather be VY2TT than
VE2IM, yet VE2IM's unassisted score is nearly three million points more than
VY2TT's assisted score. And, no offence to Yuri, but based on the QTH.com
photo for VE2IM and the website for VY2TT, I'd rather have the VY2TT
multiple stacked monobanders and multiple 140'+ towers, too.
In Single Op All Bands High, you're at fourth place before you've reached
the first place score in Assisted All Bands High. Did No.5 K1DG not outscore
the leading Assisted All Bands High score because he didn't use assistance,
or because PX5E arguably has higher potential for more higher-point,
off-continent QSOs?
And, this is all before log-checking, too. Will, for example, PX5E lose
points and mults through the bad spots of others?
There have been lots of excuses to explain why unassisteds always beat
assisteds. And it the main excuse goes like this: "Assisted attracts lesser
operators in lesser locations."
I don't buy that. Does K5ZD, who recently admitted to the 'shame' of
operating assisted, consider himself a lid? Surely not, and surely nobody
who is familiar with his history would make such a claim, either.
I think unassisteds win because rate is king, because two QSO points in the
hand are worth four in the bush and because chasing spots can distract you
from rate.
So, no, I don't believe a loss in focus on the distinction between the two
classes means operators MUST use the internet to be competitive. More likely
is the hard-core uns will attempt to prove they don't need no stinkin'
spots!
73, kelly
ve4xt
On 12/2/14 10:44 AM, "Mats Strandberg" <sm6lrr@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Martin,
>
> Anyone sitting in front of a radio for 48 hours does a great job and should
> be rightfully admired. If the person also have some health issues, such an
> operation is even more impressive. I do not take any credits away from
> people making such a physical and mental effort in breaking own previous
> records or even winning a contest one way or another.
>
> When I said lazy means that I consider myself lazy, when I do no not limit
> myself to "me and my radio(s)".This is my own subjective opinion and is not
> necessarily the truth.
>
> I can not question if you feel more fatigue when working SOAB(A) rather
> than SOAB. Human beings are different and we all react differently to
> physical and mental stress.
>
> My own subjective feeling is that when working Assisted, I do not feel
> nervous of failing to find the multipliers on the bands. If I keep very
> good and accurate real time control of the skimmer or RBN, I will be very
> quick to work the stations before the pileups build too strong for my small
> pistol station. When working unassisted, I always fear to miss difficult
> multipliers that only appear for a very limited period of time. I know when
> my target file is higher than actual multiplier and QSO count, and I feel
> that the only way for me to change the situation is to more effectively
> find those multipliers that "should" be there. but whom I have failed to
> find. This is stress to me.
>
> Working with the cluster, and in particular with RBN, VE7CC or an own
> skimmer, makes me feel 100% comfortable that sooner or later the rare ones
> will pop up. If I am just quick as a cobra attacks, I will be there before
> the big guns and hopefully get the mults at once.
>
> For me personally, the stress of "not finding them" is causing much more
> fatigue than keeping myself awake or surviving the pain in my butt...
>
> Contesting does not become "more honest" just because the organizers give
> up on those cheating. To merge SOAB(A) with SOAB is a simple way to say:
> Now we nailed them. They have no opportunity to cheat anymore.
>
> I think this is to give up!
>
> Instead, the organizers should strive to develop tools to detect the rotten
> apples and separate them from the good ones in the basket.
> Cluster-cheating is no less severe than excessive power cheating, but still
> "we fool ourselves" by thinking that merged categories reduce cheating.
> Power-cheating is a far worse problem than cluster-cheating, and by using
> good software and SDR receivers, it is nowadays more easy to find
> cluster-cheaters than before. Just work Assisted in a whole contest, and
> you understand yourself who is using cluster and skimmers, and who are not.
> I make notes of those whom I think are Assisted like myself in such
> contests, and it is interesting to compare that list with what category
> people claim to be in when they submit the log.
>
> 73 de Mats RM2D
>
>
>
> 2014-12-02 18:57 GMT+03:00 Martin , LU5DX <lu5dx@lucg.com.ar>:
>
>> Hi Mats,
>>
>> Thank you for your note.
>>
>> Reducing SOAB(A) to just point and clicking by Hans sounded really funny
>> to me.
>>
>> But now you saying SOAB(A) involves laziness is even funnier!
>>
>> All the SOAB(A) efforts I made from LP1H involved having my rear end
>> sticking to the chair for 48 hours. In 2010 after a health issue that
>> involved two herniated discs the week before the contest and while on
>> "really strong pain pills), I still managed to sit for 48 hours straight.
>> So I don't see laziness there.
>>
>> I can tell you one thing for sure. Plain SOAB is a lot less fatiguing than
>> SOAB(A). And it's easier than SOAB(A), just tune the dial, stop at the
>> mults you hear and work'em. I mean I'm saying this after:
>>
>> 5 SOAB (A) entries totalizing: 23051 Qs in CQ WW DX CW Between 2008 and
>> 2012 from LP1H
>> 2 SOAB entries totalizing: 9889 Qs in CQ WW DX CW Between 2013 and 2014
>> from CE3CT
>>
>>
>> I really appreciate you Mats, but I really cannot understand your
>> reasoning. Where that perception comes from.
>>
>> What Germans did in their WRTC qualifying rules is a great step forward to
>> making sure honest competition at least in what packet abuse is concerned
>> is achieved. I knew Paul was going to bring the rest of the list of
>> cheating activities cleverly developed by cheaters, like ghost ops, power
>> abuse, remote mult stations and the rest.
>>
>> Does that mean I'm switching back to SOAB(A) to attempt to gain a sit in
>> WRTC 2018. Nope. I do what I enjoy the most, but that doesn't mean things
>> need to be the way I like them. Things need to be the best way possible to
>> make sure results reflect reality and we move forward towards Fair Play.
>>
>> Let me tell you something, there is a way to solve those too. As I said
>> before, to eliminate ghost ops: streaming video or clips uploaded to
>> Youtube right after the test. Takes little investment and high profile
>> stations can prove what they do.
>>
>> The rest of the list should be worked on. That's it.
>>
>> Vy 73,
>>
>> Martin, LU5DX
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 12:24 PM, Mats Strandberg <sm6lrr@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Martin,
>>>
>>> Most of your points are valid, but the better contester is the one that
>>> does ALL his contesting without any dependence on cluster, RBN or similar
>>> tools.
>>>
>>> I work equally often SOAB and SOAB(A). Both disciplines are fun, but one
>>> of them is "lazy man"s choice". Sometimes (like this past weekend) I
>>> decided to be lazy.... and for sure did not end up in SOAB...
>>>
>>> Let's face the fact - WRTC should be the competition where the elite of
>>> the elite should meet!
>>>
>>> If you favor clicking skills, then computer games is the arena... Not
>>> First Class contesting like WRTC!
>>>
>>> I moreover also strongly disagree with your belief that Assisted and
>>> Non-Assisted should be merged into one category. It will be the separation
>>> of Real Contesting from Artificial
>>> Contesting...
>>>
>>> Operator skills in contesting should be based on the ability to balance
>>> Run rate with S&P efficiency, managing propagation changes and Grey Line
>>> influence - not your ability to "click the cluster" and automatically send
>>> away your call with another click.
>>>
>>> I am surprised if German organizers of WRTC had the intention to equalize
>>> SOAB with SOAB(A) when contesters should qualify for next WRTC! Maybe (and
>>> hopefully) a clarification will follow after this debate.
>>>
>>> 73 de RM2D (SM6LRR), Mats
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, December 2, 2014, Martin , LU5DX <lu5dx@lucg.com.ar> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Hans,
>>>> With all due respect.
>>>> I believe you do not have all the information you need to make your
>>>> statement.
>>>> To say that, it would be really interesting if you tried to enter SOAB(A)
>>>> in a serious effort, trying to beat a personal best of yours or a State
>>>> Record previously set in SOAB.
>>>> If you do, you will realize that it goes way beyond of just pointing and
>>>> clicking to be competitive and break a SOAB mark, but this time in
>>>> SOAB(A).
>>>> I have entered SOAB for eight years in CQ WW and other contests and last
>>>> year I switched back to SOAB. Simply because I wanted to try something
>>>> different. I find SOAB more rewarding though. But SOAB(A) ops deserve all
>>>> my respect and admiration.
>>>> You do need to be even better than SOAB at balancing your run/mult time.
>>>> You need to determine when to call a mult or not. You need to really
>>>> listen
>>>> to the calls of the DX station you are calling because spots get busted
>>>> quite often.
>>>> You need all the skills involved in SOAB plus you need to be able to
>>>> handle
>>>> tons of information that go against the "Rate is King" rule.
>>>>
>>>> Despite that, I always believed and I still do, that SOAB/SOAB(A) should
>>>> be
>>>> merged to eliminate one of the many ways cheaters have to cheat in our
>>>> hobby and ruin it.
>>>>
>>>> Vy 73,
>>>>
>>>> Martin, LU5DX
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 2:00 AM, Radio K0HB <kzerohb@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> That is truly tragic as it favors "point and click" skills over
>>>> "radioman"
>>>>> skills.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 73, de Hans, K0HB
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Monday, Dec 1, 2014 at 21:50, Randy Thompson K5ZD <k5zd@charter.net
>>>>> ,
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The surprise for me is that Assisted scores are compared against
>>>>> Unassisted.
>>>>>
>>>>> This really says that if you want maximum points, you have to plan on
>>>>>
>>>>> working Assisted.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ___________________________________________
>>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|