CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] Non-assisted & Assisted

To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Non-assisted & Assisted
From: Joe <nss@mwt.net>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 08:36:10 -0600
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
It should be easy - MM, M2, MS, SOHP, SOHP(A), SOLP, SOLP(A), QRP, QRP(A)  -
What the heck is so hard about that?  Anyone?

AGREED 100%

Joe WB9SBD
Sig
The Original Rolling Ball Clock
Idle Tyme
Idle-Tyme.com
http://www.idle-tyme.com
On 1/28/2013 8:29 PM, Edward Sawyer wrote:
If contest committees are spending time to check on the use of assisted in
the non-assisted class, then the logical conclusion is that it would give
the cheater an advantage.  Otherwise why bother. So, it is clear that it has
an effect on the outcome.  And it has had an effect on the outcome.in at
least one recent CQWW, the HP(A) category outscored the HP category.  I am
quite sure it wasn't the first time.

So why is this topic so suddenly being floated by some very familiar names
in the contest circles?  Fess up folks.

Both categories are big and popular in all power categories.  Why is there a
need to change it?

I completely agree with an early part of this thread that every contest
should have an assisted category and to not force assisted operators into
the Multi-Single category just for using packet or skimmer.  That is as
unfair as forcing single ops to compete with operators with global
assistance.

It should be easy - MM, M2, MS, SOHP, SOHP(A), SOLP, SOLP(A), QRP, QRP(A)  -
What the heck is so hard about that?  Anyone?

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

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