I have operated both ways.
If I want to enjoy a contest as a "Radioman" I run without assistance.
If it's a slog-to-get-points-for-MWA contest (a voice contest in other words) I
have run in the assisted category.
Please don't take away the enjoyment by forcing us to compete with each other
in a single melded assisted/solo category.
PLEASE!
73, de Hans, K0HB/K7
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 8:58 AM, Mark Simms <msimmsdr@gmail.com> wrote:
> I was interested in Charles Harpole's comments about the "loss of the joy
> of discovery" that may result from using spotting networks during a
> contest. I am a long-time "little pistol" stuck with a vertical and an
> end-fed long wire for all HF bands. The only thing that keeps me in the
> game is a linear (anything radiates if you put enough power into it!). I am
> fairly slow to adopt new technology and have been ambivalent about using
> spotting networks. For one thing, I can't hear most of the stations that
> are listed. As a result of my set up, I rely on S&P through the majority of
> a contest.
> Harpole's comments resonated with me because one of the things that still
> thrills me is "discovering" a rare station calling CQ Test (often high up
> in the band on CW) that hasn't (yet) attracted a pile up. It is the
> complete serendipity that makes for the kind of reinforcement to keep
> tuning around. It seems that spotting networks spoil a lot of the fun on 2
> levels - they take away the "surprise" element and they create pileups that
> make it hard for "little pistols" to crack in a contest situation.
> I think "non-spotters" should get a differential multiplier if we stick to
> that during a contest.
> Mark, W9MS
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|