[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] Get Rid of the Assisted Category

To: "'Randy Thompson'" <k5zd@charter.net>,<cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Get Rid of the Assisted Category
From: <k0luz@topsusa.com>
Reply-to: k0luz@topsusa.com
Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2006 16:33:30 -0500
List-post: <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
Although propagation today seems to be poor for the 9A contest,  I checked
out the rules and lo and behold it states "All stations are allowed to use
the spots from DX packet Cluster."  Now doesn't that make it simple?  If
it's an advantage,  everyone can use it,  if it is a detriment,  then "just
say no."  No worries about cheating, advantages, writing and reading
hundreds of emails on the contest forum about the subject.
I often run assisted in the various contests.  Why?  Because it's fun!
Granted, I could turn off the telnet and use the software at its 75%
capabilities,  but I enjoy using all the elements.  I see it as seeing the
contest in its entirety instead of having a partition placed over part of
the activities so that I can't see them. Often I can't work many of the
stations that are listed,  but nonetheless,  it still gives me a full
picture of what is going on. Do I still dig down and S&P looking for that
rare mult hidden between two bemouths calling CQ Test?  Absolutely,  and
often I will find one.  So the idea that it eliminates S&P is untrue.  

Some operators feel that assisted gives the operators an unfair advantage.
For those who use it only to find new multipliers,  it may be.  But if the
operator is so unproficient that the only way he (or she) can find mults is
to find them on the telnet,  then they are not much of a threat for top spot
anyway.  Others complain that it creates a immediate pileup on some dx
stations.  Personally,  that's great!  I enjoy breaking pileups and pitting
my skills against the W3LPL, KC1XX, NY4A, K3LR, and the list goes on.  Often
I lose those pileup encounters,  but often I beat out some of the big guns
and for me that's a high! And it's much less expensive than buying drugs for
a high (I've heard).

Advantages of Assisted in my opinion

1.  Immediate knowledge of new mults on band 
2.  Knowledge of most mults in parts of the world not open for me at current
3.  The opportunity to get into a pileup fray.
4.  The fun of using all the bells and whistles of the software 
5.  Gives a better idea of exactly how good or bad the propagation is 
6.  A more complete view of the entire contest.

Disadvantages of Assisted:

1.  The berating we receive from some of the elitist operators for choosing
2.  Not having a category that gives us an opportunity to compete with like
3.  Tendency to give up runs too quickly to go chase a multiplier (Often new
mults will appear during runs that you would have never worked if you just
S&P.  But if you chase the mults posted,  you just lost your run frequency.

There may be some other advantages and disadvantages,  but that's a start.
Notice that nowhere in either lists is the mention of "because I can win the
contest this way".  You can't win the contest with assisted only. 
You gotta be able to dig for the weak mults that no one else has found.  
You gotta be able to go through the entire band checking for stations you
haven't worked (many which are not posted on telnet).  
You gotta have a good enough signal to be able to run for rate.  
You gotta remember calls so when they are esp weak,  you have an idea who
they are.  
You gotta know propagation and know the long paths.  
You gotta know CW well enough that it is a second language to you.  

These are some of the skills that will get you the firewood,  not the telnet

CQ magazine contests do recognize the assisted category,  so the bull I am
attempting to gore is the ARRL.  After all,  it's SO HARD  to create new
categories by having to reprogram a program to separate the Assisted from
the Multi-Singles.  So if that is not the reason, is it that the elitist are
running the contest committee?

So all I ask is that I be able to be recognized with other stations with
similar capabilities.   I just want to be able to know who is competing with
me for the fun of it!  And sometimes you can send me some firewood or
another piece of paper to make me feel good.  And at the same time,  I will
have had a lot of fun!

Red K0LUZ 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com 
> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Randy Thompson
> Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2006 2:44 PM
> To: cq-contest@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Get Rid of the Assisted Category
> I am sooooo close to agreeing with this.  Let's get back to 
> one single op category and have at it.  If only it was that simple.
> At the top of the standings, it wouldn't cause much of a 
> change.  The scores for SO and SOA are pretty similar.  The 
> top guys in both categories are winning on a combination of 
> skill, station, and geography.
> However, as you move down the listings, the advantage of 
> packet really starts to show up. Multipliers have a bigger 
> impact in a 500 QSO log than one with 3000 QSOs. So it would 
> be unfair to the guys who don't have access (or desire) to 
> use Packet. 
> There are a lot of people who enjoy the satisfaction of doing 
> things on their own and not relying on the spoon feeding or 
> distraction of packet.  It is a pretty good feeling to have 
> more multipliers and a bigger score than the guys that use packet.
> The WAE contest allows packet for all competitors.  The 
> listings indicate if a station claims no packet use.  Seems 
> to be a good compromise, but I know there are many single ops 
> who stopped participating because of this.  So there is risk 
> of losing supporters for any contest that allows packet use.
> For now, I continue to be in favor of separate categories for 
> SO and Assisted. Well, I am really in favor of eliminating 
> packet, but that seems to be impossible.  :) 
> Would love to see more definition of terms in contest rules 
> so that we had more agreement on what is right and wrong.  I 
> doubt any of us have read all the laws for our town, state, 
> and country, yet we generally "know" what is legal and what 
> is not.  Regardless of the text of the rules, same should be 
> true for contesting.
> Randy, K5ZD
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com 
> > [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of 
> Jamie Dupree 
> > NS3T
> > Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 7:14 PM
> > To: cq-contest@contesting.com
> > Subject: [CQ-Contest] Get Rid of the Assisted Category
> > 
> > We have had a pretty lively discussion in recent weeks on 
> what really 
> > constitutes assistance and what does not.  For some live 
> scoreboards 
> > and propagation tools are bad.  For others, the spotting networks 
> > cause too many problems.  (I won't even get into 
> directional CQ'ing.)
> > 
> > So my thought is pretty simple - if you are a single op - you are a 
> > single op.
> > No category for assisted or unassisted.
> > 
> > How often have I read on this reflector on how the best 
> unassisted ops 
> > will beat the best assisted ops almost every time.  If that's the 
> > case, then we shouldn't worry about having an Assisted 
> > category....because those same unassisted guys will still prevail.
> > 
> > I look at what's happening in terms of contest tools and software 
> > right now.
> > The advances are integrating computer logging with propagation, 
> > spotting networks and more.  Many are using instant 
> messaging as well.  
> > The shack table is getting more and more crowded.
> > 
> > When you get rid of the Assisted category, then the only thing you 
> > have to worry about on spots is self-spotting - and that can be 
> > detected as K1TTT has repeatedly shown.  Spotting isn't going away, 
> > just like the internet isn't going away, just like hi-tech 
> propagation 
> > tools aren't going away.
> > 
> > Just a thought.
> > 
> > 73 Jamie NS3T
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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

CQ-Contest mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>