Hank,
I mostly agree with you except for all of the different categories where I
suspect you are tongue in cheek. Actually the computer logging software
could at least be equated with half a person. I recall my first experiences
back in the early 70s with contesting where you had to keep check sheets and
manually enter calls on them and also check for dups against the sheet. This
in addition to manually keeping a log all while operating the contest. The
computer does this much better and faster so there is virtually no delay in
the process. It also does partial checking on the fly, updates your score
and a lot more if you're so inclined. And those search and pounce memories
come in real handy when you hear that new mult but there is too big a pileup
to hang around. You can go back any time and check for when to pounce.
I'd be happy with existing categories but without assisted (Unlimited in
SS). Many contests (including some of the major European ones) have already
done this and it seems to work well.
73, Don VE3XD
-----Original Message-----
From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
[mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Hank Greeb
Sent: November-05-07 11:08 AM
To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Assistance & Entry Status
I personally think that the distinction of Single Operator and Assisted
is an anachronism of the 20th century, if not the 19th century. Why
don't we have separate categories for folks who operate SO2R, or those who
use computers for logging, and sending CW and Phone content? They are
getting assistance from technology - hardly anyone would have thought to
operate SO2R in the 50's when I got my license, and computer logging,
sending, tracking of antennae, etc., are no different that using a spotting
network.
We should have categories for
Operators who build their own equipment from scratch. This would include
all the antenna hardware, including, perhaps, winding their own rotor
motors, and fabricating their own towers, if needed.
Operators who use superhet receivers - after all, superhets weren't in use
when contesting first started.
I could go on and on. But, my question is "why do we disallow some forms of
technological advances in contesting, but allow many, many, many others?"
Or, do we equate the help from a "person" to the help one gets from a stupid
computer interfaced to the internet?
73 de n8xx Hg
PAUL PIERCEY <p.piercey@nl.rogers.com> wrote:
> Message: 4
> Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2007 19:01:55 -0700 (PDT)
> From: PAUL PIERCEY <p.piercey@nl.rogers.com>
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Assistance & Entry Status
> To: cq-contest@contesting.com
> Message-ID: <877554.82707.qm@web88107.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> I disagree. If there is no provision in the rules governing the use of the
cluster or "assistance" per se, then there would be no expectation that a
single operator would enter as a multi-op as a matter of conscience. If the
rules can't be followed then where does that leave us?
>
>
> 73 -- Paul VO1HE
_______________________________________________
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
|