I suggest two enhancements to Kelly's wording: 1. "receipt" should be replaced by "receipt and usage", because one has no control over another station coming on the run frequency and volunteering tha
Joe - If I bought into your definition of DX alerting assistance of any kind, but had my viewpoint on Skimmer, I would then argue, using your logic, that if someone put out a very short CQ (which wil
Ron is correct. If the contesting community cannot agree what "Assisted" means, it's fruitless to try to fabricate contest rules. (Sorry Randy) This term needs to be defined first, then the rest will
What Alex, VE3NEA is referring to on the website is the *format* of the Telnet output, not the mode of distribution. This was done specifically so that logging programs could connect *locally* to Ski
Bob has cut through all the rhetoric and nailed the core issue. This cannot be decided in a "popularity contest". Each contest sponsor needs to make the decision based on their vision for the future
--Original Message-- From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Robert Chudek - K0RC Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 5:22 AM To: Ron Notarius W3WN;
<snip bit on ARRL rules concerning use of any kind of alerting assistance not allowed for SOs> Like "packet" now apparently means "alerting assistance" to some instead of a digital mode that provides
The word "assisted" has always been shorthand for "single operator plus cluster" and those who persist on focusing on "assistance" rather than the "involvement of another person or persons" miss the
A general and abstract wording won´t work reliable for a longer time as it is with nearly every rule- and lawmaking. They react to things happening in the real world and new developments. General wor
I don't think there is. It's all the same technology, just scattered over a bigger circle. The technology of radio is essentially globally homogenous. The magic "500 meter circle" is an artificial p
Joe, If you don't agree that "arranging schedules" by a third party is soliciting contacts, that is great. It puts your judgment in question on every other definition you have made regarding this sub
Just because it hasn't been done before doesn't mean it isn't appropriate now. Rather than basing category decisions on names ("assistance", "technology", etc.), or how the variations are implemented
"Perhaps one way to look at innovations, then, is whether they require more or less operator skill to increase the score. I think it's pretty clear that Skimmer will reduce the amount of skill requir
Hi Chris, Interesting suggestion, though I suspect it has a flaw that you may not yet have considered. Not everybody who wishes to SO2R wishes to use 1kw or play in the same pond as the QRO boys. Ple
Dick, That's correct - it involves other individuals and is therefore multi-single. No, the real reason the cluster spawned a new category was because those who used the cluster did not want to compe
My response to W4TV: I don't think so. It was obvious that using packet is fundamentally different than not using packet. I think a lot of people feel that way about Skimmer, too. Well, CQ WPX has th
Maybe I'm old fashioned, but there's nothing like a better antenna. Seriously, nothing is being punished. I'm sure Skimmer will be available in all categories that permit packet, at the very least.
You may not be suppressing it but it is certainly not being promoted. It gets treated as a "necessary evil" for the multi-op classes. There is no need to consider the value of the information produc
Dick, Sorry, you need to research the history of the so called "assisted" categories. In the late 70's and early 80's before clusters you would see an occasional entry in multisingle labeled "K7ZZZ +
We keep hearing many smart and silly arguments in this everlasting debate but claiming that packet does not help SO much as unassisted guys keep dominating the assisted ones is the most ridiculous of