Duane,
Good thoughts. Beware of unintended consequences.
If it goes this way, we will end up with 100 categories in a contest, and
it will be meaningless. Let's look at another hobby: Sailboat racing.
Even the smallest competitor can use advanced technology. Sail racing
classes are broken up similarly to how we do it in radio contests now.
In VHF contesting, ARRL broke up MultiOp into Multi-Limited and
Multi-Unlimited? What did that do? It let a few
people who complained about not winning win, in a completely new category.
It was not a good strategy overall, because
it encourages less activity on parts of the spectrum, and leaves the few
big unlimited folks with no one to compete against.
If winning in your own category is the goal of these proposed changes, it
does not make much sense. We have old records without technology, and
new records with. Surely we can find more creative ways to make people
happy?
Remote operation can be "Boy and his Radio", if the operator chooses to
operate it that way. Placing Remote in a separate category is simply
prejudice or ignorance of the technology, IMHO.
Your proposals sound like "us" vs the "other" -- anything that is not "boy
and his radio" should be categorized something "else".
Not a great way to grow Radiosport and be inclusive.
73, Gerry W1VE
On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 10:56 AM, Duane - N9DG via CQ-Contest <
cq-contest@contesting.com> wrote:
> Perhaps it is time for contest sponsors to rethink contest categories in
> general based on a yet another recent lengthy thread about assisted vs
> non-assisted.. They continue to insist upon trying to lump wholly within
> the station skimmers and other computing process heavy types of
> technologies as being the same thing as DX spotting networks and other
> EXTERNAL to the station derived band condition and Q making information
> technologies. They are not even close to being the same thing.
>
> I don't buy the argument that the "end result is essentially the same, so
> they are the same", nope not at all. That argument goes on to say that it
> is because the technology does the signal "decoding for the operator", well
> truth is, so so does everything else about the radios we use. Until someone
> can stick PL-259 in their ear and decode the signals coming down the
> feedline without a radio, then everything EVERYTHING else about our radios
> can considered "assistance" by that same logic too. Where to draw that line
> really is arbitrary.
>
> There is a really simple "test" to figure out if a station is assisted or
> not. And that is - would the station be able to continue operate
> identically for finding and working Q's if the big switch is pulled to turn
> off the entire Internet (and DX clusters of all descriptions) completely?
> ASSISTED stations would not be able to continue operating in the same way
> if the Internet went away. A non assisted station would continue to operate
> exactly the same way, and not lose any Q making capability at all. It
> really is that simple for how to decide what is assisted vs. what is not.
>
> The one and only thing that I think can be held constant, or even should
> be tried to be held constant over time regarding station technology, is
> that all information used to find and make Q's in the contest must come
> down the feedlines of the antennas used in the competition, AND that it ALL
> fit inside the station's defined location / circle. Trying to draw
> arbitrary lines between one type of technology vs. another as long as it is
> wholly contained inside the station is just plain futile. If skimmers are
> too disruptive, then why aren't narrow roofing filters, the narrow roofing
> filters certainly do provide a big edge. And why not also exclude scopes
> like found on Icoms for the last 20+ years, they too provide plenty info
> about Q's to be made. Or what about computer logging, CW/voice keyers,
> super check partial logging lists etc.?? Then there's the silliness about
> running skimmer in waterfall only mode being OK, well I can tell you right
> now with just a little practice it is v
> isually very easy to see what signal is a CQ and which is not, just by
> looking at the visual traits of the traces left on the waterfall screen.
> And you can even copy slow speed CW by reading the dots and dashes if you
> want to.
>
> You would think that a technology like "wholly WITHIN the station
> location" skimmers, or similar technologies would be applauded for at least
> partially obsoleting the completely non amateur RADIO paths of Q making
> information that the Internet based DX spotting and clusters all are, but
> nope.
>
> So with the above in mind here's my rough idea for how categories (and
> overlays) should be defined (multi-op categories would follow a similar
> pattern):
>
> Single Op CLASSIC (category for those who like to think they are just "a
> boy and his radio" - essentially freezes station technology circa 1985):
> 1 RX.
> 1 TX.
> Only scopes that display spectrum information such as panadpaters and
> waterfalls, but ones that do not decode signals in any fashion.
> No signal content decoders of any kind, all QSO content information must
> be achieved by aural means.
> No DX spotting networks, packet clusters, DX repeaters, i.e outside
> assistance.
> No station Internet, phone, etc. connectivity of any kind.
> No propagation prediction, or other current propagation condition
> reporting tools etc. of any kind be used during the contest period.
> Allow logging software and/or stand alone CW memory keyers / voice keyers.
> No remotely controlled stations.
> Allow / encourage computer logging and electronic log submission (because
> no contest sponsor in their right mind would want to discourage computer
> logs!).
> Allow antenna switching and pointing control via logging software.
> No other automation.
>
> OVERLAY Category - NO SCOPES: No spectrum or waterfall type scopes of any
> kind, or any technology that provides any spectrum visualization.
>
>
>
> Single Op UNASSISTED (draws the line between assistance and non assistance
> where it should be, i.e. external to the station Q making information vs.
> entirely from within the station itself sourced Q making information, the
> actual technology makeup used within the station itself is irrelevant):
> No RX restrictions.
> 1 TX.
> No DX spotting networks, packet clusters, DX repeaters, etc. i.e outside
> of the station sources of Q making information..
> No station Internet connectivity of any kind.
> No propagation prediction, or other current propagation condition
> reporting tools etc. of any kind be used during the contest period.
> Allow the use of ANY other technology, including visual displays of any
> type, and including skimmers, or other decoding technologies, etc. AND
> which MUST BE ENTIRELY contained within the station's defined location /
> circle, AND also that use ONLY the antennas and feedlines for the bands
> used within the competition to extract information from.
> Allow antenna switching and pointing control via logging software, or by
> any other, but entirely local to the station's location technological means.
> REQUIRED that the human operator makes the DECISION, and then take the
> PHYSICAL ACTION to TX and work each and every QSO that the station logs.
> No remote station operation allowed.
> No restrictions on CW keyers / voice keyers.
> REQUIRE computer logging and electronic log submission.
>
> OVERLAY Category - AUTOMATED: If any QSO is made using the station's
> technology without the operator having to first decide, and then initiate
> the individual contact by physical means, then it is considered an
> AUTOMATED QSO, and therefore the station MUST then enter with an AUTOMATED
> category overlay.
>
>
>
> Single Op ASSISTED (pretty much anything goes except fully automated Qs):
> No RX restrictions.
> 1 TX.
> Allow DX clusters, phone calls, local repeaters, or anything else that can
> provide Q alerting assistance by using any means that may be both internal
> and external to the station's location.
> No restrictions on Internet connectivity.
> Allow the use of propagation prediction, or any other propagation
> condition reporting tools during the contest period.
> No restrictions on CW keyers / voice keyers.
> Allow antenna switching and pointing control via logging software, or any
> other technology means.
> No automated QSOs, the operator is required to make the DECISION, and then
> take PHYSICAL ACTION to TX and work each and every QSO that the station
> logs.
> REQUIRE computer logging and electronic log submission.
>
> OVERLAY category - REMOTE: Remote station operation is allowed provided
> that the remote link is just a "long mic, speaker, control, and display
> lead". So therefore ALL RX/TX on the bands used within the competition MUST
> take place ENTIRELY from the remotely controlled station's location
> (circle).
>
>
> These categories are designed to allow those who want minimal station
> technology to have a category. Those who don't want arbitrary restrictions
> placed on the technology used entirely within the station, and who want
> nothing to do with getting Q making info by parallel paths of
> communications fed into the station. And finally, these categories also
> accommodate those who want to run fully remote or fully automated
> configurations.
>
> Duane
> N9DG
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|