Hi Yuri:
I strongly disagree for CW and SSB contesting. I think digital modes are
fundamentally different and do not know enough about them to speak
intelligently!
Artificial intelligence and automation are taking over an increasing number of
functions that, in the past, were done by operators. I think we should draw a
line between Single Operator and Unlimited/Assisted categories. One of these
functions (and an historic reason for splitting the multi-operator categories
into multi-operator and Assisted/Unlimited categories) is finding stations to
work and monitoring the bands for openings. In multi-ops and Assisted
categories in CW contests, this function is done primarily by computers now and
the results are communicated via the internet.
I think we should maintain single operator categories where some of these
functions are still performed by people! In fact I would propose that the
definition for single-operator be something like:
One operator
No information about callsigns/multipliers, frequencies, band openings, or
real-time propagation through any means other than the operator decoding
signals by ear.
Yes, I realize this would eliminate spectrum displays, local skimmers, CW/SSB
decoders, displays of band openings based on RBN data or other operators QSOs,
etc., that are currently allowed under the rules of some current contests. It
would also eliminate use of "Super Check Partial" files that are often used as
examples of "assistance".
Single operator categories can co-exist very well with the increasingly
automated and technical Assisted/Unlimited categories and multi-operator
categories. Those operators (like me) that prefer these should have a chance to
compete.
I will also go out on a limb and predict that a robot/AI program will win an
assisted or multi-operator category in a major CW or digital contest within the
next decade. I would prefer to have a Single Operator category at that point
where I can play the game without competing with robots/AI programs and a game
played increasingly on the internet.
I also believe that we should retain Unlimited/Assisted categories and add them
to contests like NAQP which currently do not have Unlimited/Assisted categories.
Mark, KD4D
> On August 17, 2018 at 9:33 AM Yuri <ve3dz@rigexpert.net> wrote:
>
>
> I think the definition of the category should be really based only on a
> number of operators and number of transmitted signals at a time.
> Single OP or Multi Op (different numbers of TX's). That's it.
> If a single Op can do what a bunch of people together can't - why should he
> be handicapped?
> If he can utilize all of the technology and all by himself (without physical
> help of other people) - why should we call him assisted? Only because a bunch
> of "ordinary" people can't do the same?
>
> Of someone is using OCF dipole instead of monoband Yagi, or if someone
> doesn't have Internet in the shack - that's his own choice. Everyone else
> doesn't have to "downgrade" because of that.
>
> Yuri VE3DZ
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of
> Trent Sampson
> Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2018 5:47 PM
> To: CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Assisted
>
> Assisted is really not assisted - 2BSIQ Two Band Synchronised interleaved
> QSOs have left the assisted operator in its dust...
> It is really time to reconsider whether Assisted is truly an advantage
> anymore and deserving of its own category...
> Assisted by my definition is the sourcing of callsign, band and frequency
> information from any source other than your radio system.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: CQ-Contest <cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com> On Behalf Of Stanley
> Zawrotny
> Sent: Wednesday, 15 August 2018 1:06 AM
> To: CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> Subject: [CQ-Contest] Assisted
>
> Ken,
>
> Is remembering a well-known callsign assisted?
>
> Stan, K4SBZ
>
> "Real radio bounces off the sky."
> _______________________________________________
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|