Hi Igor,
Good idea - I like the definition of "single-op" as a single person
controlling the tools, no matter where those tools are physically
located. Multi-ops could be several people with tools at one physical
location (e.g., superstations), or several people with tools at
different QTHs (e.g., "team" entries.)
Assisted versus unassisted is decided by how the person uses the tools.
An unassisted station uses only Radio for communications. An assisted
station also communicates by means other than Radio.
If the tool is physically present with the operator(s), it's unassisted.
If the tool is remote, but manipulated only by Radio, it is unassisted.
If the tool is remote, and manipulated by telephone, Internet, etc., it
is assisted. In all cases, if there's more than one person involved,
it's multi-op.
So, you could have SO, SO(A), MO, and MO(A), plus more if you consider #
xmtrs, power level, bands, etc.
I agree - I'd pick stacked beams over CW Skimmer any day. But for those
of us who don't have the space, or money, for the fanciest tools, we
make do with what tools we can get. I think it often takes more skill
to use simple tools, which can make it more challenging and fun.
Just my HO too...
73,
/Jack de K3FIV
Point Arena, CA
On Sat, 2010-10-23 at 10:59 +0600, Igor Sokolov wrote:
> > My suggestion to the guys who write rules is to consider a different
> > approach to the definition of "assisted". Instead of what tools you
> > use, it could be defined in terms of what *information* you use, and how
> > you got it.
>
> Radiosport is based not only on operating skills but also on technological
> achievements. Multiple stacked antennas on high towers is much greater
> advantage then Skimmer or waterfall panadapter.
> I would suggest that for Single op unassisted the rules state that all the
> technology must be controlled by a single person. Any involvement of other
> human beings (dx cluster, local network, etc) during the contest should be
> considered multy op entry.
> Such a rule will not stop technological development but will clearly
> separate SO from MO.
> Still there is a problem of control and enforcement of the rules exists. It
> is not easy to distinguish use of Skimmer from a group of local spotters
> judging by received logs only. But this difficulty should not be the reason
> to write contest rules in order to ease this difficulty.
>
> Just my HO
>
> 73, Igor UA9CDC
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|