In a message dated 97-10-30 05:59:04 EST, N5TJ wrote:
<< >I haven't seen where the use of packet in assisted
>categories has enabled an assisted single operator to have a higher
>score than an unassisted operator in the box scores.
Old subject, Ken. It has in some cases. IMHO it SHOULD in ALL CASES
given EQUAL operators, stations and propagation. It's only logical. >>
Well, I agree with Jeff that there has been at least once exception to the SO
ALLOWS WINS OVER SOA "rule." However, I do NOT agree that having packet would
raise the scores of the SO guys. I do NOT think it is logical. This assumes
that grabbing multipliers is of paramount importance to winning and this
SIMPLY IS NOT THE CASE! Anyone who has studied/followed the results over the
years (and as DOCUMENTED IN WRITING in the last CQWW results) QSO'S are what
win the contest, NOT multipliers.
So if you are at a TOP GUN station with 2 radios and can work the spotted mult
on 1 or 2 calls, then perhaps you might increase your score. But for the
MAJORITY of op's, tracking down packet spots (mults) simply means that you are
NOT running (even if by the S+P method). Even QRP, I can S+P for ANY qso's at
60/hour...that's QRP (yes, I know...from the East Coast).
The point is, that spending time in a PACKET-PILEUP is a big WASTE of time if
you're interested in improving your score. Sure, it's a thrill to work a new
mult, but at what price?
All you guys should STOP guessing about it, and LOOK AT THE RESULTS....you
couldn't ask for any better PROOF and it's all there in black and white!
de Doug KR2Q
--
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST@contesting.com
|