[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: <CQ-Contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Get Rid of the Assisted Category
From: "Paul O'Kane" <pokane@ei5di.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 08:28:39 -0000
List-post: <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Kelly Taylor" <ve4xt@mts.net>

> If SO-A was such an advantage, the SO-A guys would consistently beat the 
> unassisted. That doesn't happen. In contest after contest, the 
> undistracted ops always outperform the SO-distracted ops. Which goes back 
> to an adage in contesting: rate wins contests. You can't get rate if 
> you're always chasing spots and the fewer Qs you have to multiply, the 
> less each multiplier is worth.

I would maintain that it is self-evident that, when
an individual gets real-time spotting help from other
individuals, there is potential for him/her to work
more multipliers, or high-point QSOs, than would
otherwise be the case.

When a contest's winning strategy is rate, the value
of such help is diminished and, as VE4XT describes,
may even be counter-productive.

G4BUO mentioned two contests where rate is not always
the answer, WAE and 9A.  It's easy to add to the list,
for example IOTA, Commonwealth - in fact, any contest
with a high QSO to multiplier ratio.  North American
contesters will know of others, and may not realise
it includes ARRL DX for DX entrants - where a single
multiplier has the potential to increase band scores
by two percent or more.

As G4BUO says, and how often must it be repeated, "the
critical point that separates it [spotting assistance]
from all the other 'technology' is that the help is
coming from other individuals in real time, during the
contest."  That's why SO and SO-Assisted should remain,
or be, separate categories.

Paul EI5DI 

CQ-Contest mailing list

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