[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: "'Dave Lawley'" <g4buo@compuserve.com>,<cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Get Rid of the Assisted Category
From: "Robert Naumann" <w5ov@w5ov.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 09:37:48 -0600
List-post: <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>

Your comments are similar to some others we have heard here recently.

The word "assistance" seems to be causing all sorts of confusion between
multi-op and using remote spotting help from people who are not part of your

I would suggest that we change the concept to one of Single Operator
"Networked" instead of "assisted". I think someone else suggested that word,
and I think it is a much clearer word to use in describing what is now
called an assisted operation.

Having someone in the next room, while "assisting" you, in the generic
sense, does not make you a "networked" operator: It makes you a multi-op!

What if you have friends sitting at their stations looking for stations for
you and calling into you only on say, 2M FM simplex. What if they called
into you on your running frequency? What would this be? Assistance? Again,
in the generic sense, yes - they would be assisting you. However, this is
also a multi-op scenario since these friends are helping only your
operation. The problem with this sort of situation may not be obvious, but I
believe that this would violate the single site, or 500m diameter circle
rules that many contests have rather than being an assisted category issue.
Regardless, it is clearly cheating to do something like this.

A Networked Single OP should only receive "assistance" from a publicly
available network regardless of the underlying media. I think there is an
opportunity for the rules to be tightened up in this specific area. Setting
up what is essentially a private spotting network (or more accurately - a
remote multi-op scenario) to feed information to a station is not the same
thing as being networked.

I would like to see private spotting networks specifically outlawed as
violating station limits rules, and also for the assisted category to be
changed to "Single Operator Networked" to more clearly describe the

It also makes the distinction manifest between being networked and receiving
a random act of kindness on the air.


Bob W5OV

-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Lawley [mailto:g4buo@compuserve.com] 
Sent: Sunday, December 17, 2006 6:30 AM
To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Get Rid of the Assisted Category

Yes we've done this one many times before but I get worried when I see 
the sort of posting from Red K0LUZ.

Suppose in the next major contest I'm in my shack, ready to go. In the 
next room I have set up a number of receivers, connected to receiving 
antennas. I invite some of my friends around and their job is to spend 
the contest period tuning the bands. Any time they find an 'interesting' 
station which they think might be a mult or of interest to me for some 
other reason, they write the callsign and frequency down on a piece of 
paper for me and come into the shack and put it on a pile in front of 
me. Would anyone seriously believe that makes mine a single operator entry?

Packet cluster assistance is very similar, though there are many more 
people contributing spots and the spots go to anyone who wants them. But 
the critical point that separates it from all the other 'technology' is 
that the help is coming from other individuals in real time, during the 

There is a choice in CQWW whether to operate SO or SOA, but DARC have 
taken away my choice for WAE. I love the QTC feature but I don't feel 
simply annotating non-assisted entries in the overall listing is 
anything like good enough, so I don't support that contest any more and 
neither would I support the 9A contest, or any other event which fails 
to recognise that packet cluster assistance means that more than one 
person is doing the operating.

Dave G4BUO

CQ-Contest mailing list

CQ-Contest mailing list

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