Hi Rudy:
This discussion not about "creating a category" for those who don't want to get
better - the category exists in many major contests now. In fact, the ARRL
created new categories (Unlimited) specifically to allow one operator to use
all the new technologies being discussed. They ARRL previously classified
these operations as "Multi-Operator".
The discussion is whether to eliminate the existing single operator categories.
There are two fundamental questions I think we should consider about the
nature of radiosport. I think these are relevant to the discussion:
1) Are contacts between people - do people identify and make contacts?
2) Are contacts between two physical places using radio waves?
The Unlimited Class answers NO to the first question. Computers can identify
and make the contacts without human intervention. Robots can compete on an
even basis. BTW, I expect a robot to win a major CW or digital contest within
10 years.
The Unlimited (CQ calls this Assisted) Class in the CQ 160 CW contest answers
NO to the second question. Remote receivers are allowed.
I think Chess provides a model Radiosport can consider. There are three
categories in competitive chess that I am aware of:
a) Single Operator: Prohibits suggestions on moves and strategy from
computers or other people during the competition.
b) Computer: The machines play each other.
c) Unlimited: A "combined class" where teams of humans and computers
compete with each other.
In Radiosport, the categories can co-exist in the same competition!
73,
Mark, KD4D
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rudy Bakalov via CQ-Contest" <cq-contest@contesting.com>
To: "KU7Y" <ku7y.cw@gmail.com>
Cc: "cq-contest" <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 6, 2016 9:06:21 PM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] cqcontest.net
So why would a contest encourage participants not to develop new skills and
techniques? Is there any other sport that says "It's OK if you don't want to
get better, we will create a category for you. No worries, mate". This is what
this debate about assisted vs unassisted vs so2r etc is all about.
Rudy N2WQ
Sent using a tiny keyboard. Please excuse brevity, typos, or inappropriate
autocorrect.
> On Apr 6, 2016, at 1:50 PM, KU7Y <ku7y.cw@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Rudy,
>
> From my little experience using SO2R I found that it was a very big help
> just in knowing when to do things like change bands. And many multipliers
> were found on the 2nd band that I would not have otherwise worked. And I am
> not a skilled SO2R op.
>
> From my point of view it's a night and day difference. If you add in
> panadaptors it's even a greater difference. If you add in the Assisted
> class it becomes a click and call matter to work multipliers.
>
> There is nothing wrong with any of that. But the advantage of the 2nd radio
> is, in my opinion, to great to lump them into the same class.
>
> And that's without even considering those super operators who can run on 2
> bands in the dueling CQ mode. I have a great deal of respect for anyone who
> can do that!
>
> OK, back in my hole,
>
> Ron, KU7Y
> Arizona Outlaws Contest Club
> Northern California Contest Club
> Silver Springs, NV
> ku7y@qsl.net
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Rudy Bakalov [mailto:r_bakalov@yahoo.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, April 6, 2016 7:15 AM
>> To: KU7Y
>> Cc: cq-contest@contesting.com
>> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] cqcontest.net
>>
>> Why would that be?
>>
>> Rudy N2WQ
>>
>> Sent using a tiny keyboard. Please excuse brevity, typos, or
> inappropriate
>> autocorrect.
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 5, 2016, at 9:54 PM, KU7Y <ku7y.cw@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> You're not the only one who feels that way Tony,
>>>
>>> I've said for a long time that SO1R and SO2R should be separate classes.
>>>
>>> OK, back in my hole,
>>>
>>> Ron, KU7Y
>>> Arizona Outlaws Contest Club
>>> Northern California Contest Club
>>> Silver Springs, NV
>>> ku7y@qsl.net
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf
> Of
>>>> N2TK, Tony
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 5, 2016 3:20 PM
>>>> To: cq-contest@contesting.com
>>>> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] cqcontest.net
>>>>
>>>> For my own selfish reasons I would like to see SO1R and SO2R Unassisted
>>>> separate.
>>>>
>>>> 73,
>>>> N2TK, Tony
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf
> Of
>>> Ed
>>>> Sawyer
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2016 1:19 PM
>>>> To: cq-contest@contesting.com
>>>> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] cqcontest.net
>>>>
>>>> Ditto the KD4D post.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why don't we let the unassisted operators decide whether the concern of
>>>> assisted ops invading our category is worth eliminating it over the
>>> concern?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No reason to merge the 2 categories and then do an overlay. Just leave
> it
>>>> the way it is and clarify reasonable questions like Braco's question.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> By the way, do to great efforts of the organizations and contest
> managers,
>>>> doesn't the ARRL and CQ contests represent something like 75%+ of all
> the
>>>> contest Qs made in a year? Why exactly should this majority follow the
>>>> "rest of the world" minority? Just sayin.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ed N1UR
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|