Randy, I still think you are missing the point. No one is saying not to have assisted categories. By the same logic, why not also eliminate the differentiation between HP, LP and QRP? I'm sure there
HI Randy: I didn't see this until now - I was tuning around on 160 meters this weekend. and single operator assisted categories. I am very familiar with assistance and skimmers/RBN and use them in WA
I wonder if that's really the right way to interpret those figures. I wonder (and this is pure speculation on my part) if the higher rate of assistance among high power users might be related somehow
Linear amplifiers have long been accepted as common tools for DXing and contesting, therefore why not merge the High Power, Low Power, and QRP categories into one category. For years, hams have gotte
There's another dimension of this that should be understood and factored in. Many people operate in "our" contests on a totally casual basis. Typically, they do this to increase their country totals
I would tend to agree with Pete, but I don't think that anyone is being "unfairly penalized" for using assistance. Also, aside from a few traditionalists who don't like packet, there's not a whole lo
I almost entirely agree with Bob, though I do feel that the absence of single-op-assisted categories in some contests is unfair to those who are both serious about contesting and want to use assistan
Hi Jim: K5ZD, PY5EG, and LU5DX, among many others, ARE saying "get rid of assisted categories." To quote their recent e-mails: K5ZD: >> For these contests where there is no assisted category, instead
I am delighted to learn that I was operating "normal" according to EI5DI in this CQ WW 160 m CW weekend from Kosovo, Z6! I went to very isolated place by Batlava lake with a single WiFi secured acces
I operate some contests with reversebeacon assistance and others non-assisted. Mostly... if I have a chance of picking up new DXCC credit I will enter assisted. What this means is that I enter very
Thanks God there's people that not think the same, so CW is still alive. If we continue on this way CW will dead..... when? The best rule will be "NO RULE". Do what you want! At least CC don´t have t
Author: Richard DiDonna NN3W <richnn3w@verizon.net>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 11:18:24 -0600 (CST)
Tim, as one who has done extensive operating in both SOAB and SOAB(A), there are different strategies involved in how to operate and entering into the (A) category requires you to adjust your mind so
I *think* PY5EG was agreeing with keeping them separate. Oms? 73, Pete N4ZR Check out the Reverse Beacon Network at http://reversebeacon.net, blog at reversebeacon.blogspot.com. For spots, please go
Well, just my cents to level the balance of arguments a bit. I vote for combining Assisted and non-Assisted. Why: 1. I personally don't mind in taking part in either category - skillful SO2R, good pi
Not only you are a great op. You really see what's best sport in the long run (and in the short run too). Despite the fact that organizers spend a great deal of effort trying to catch packet cheaters
Sorry, Tonno, but most of your arguments either 1) defy logic or 2) are poor reasons for combining the categories. See my comments below. 73, Steve, N2IC I vote for combining Assisted and non-Assiste
1) There is no honesty in ham radio to follow the rules so we should drop the rules; 2) It's also too much trouble to enforce the rules; 3) Assistance does not increase the score; 4) Those who use as
Sorry Steve. Your arguments do either 1) defy logic or 2) are poor resoning for not combining the categories. See my comments below. "...Written from the viewpoint of someone who is always on the rec
Exactly. That would surely ensure 100 % fair results for everyone. And that would make contesting a true competition, where you ONLY compete against yourself and see how well you can do. In fact, mos
Comments inline. 73, Steve, N2IC "...Written from the viewpoint of someone who is always on the receiving-end of 48 hour pileups. For the other 99% of us, combining the two categories does not increa