>> What we are talking about is a significant qualitative advance in
>> the capability of the technology, not disputing whether it has or
>> has not been used in the past. I maintain that a technology capable
>> of extracting the crucial contact-initiating information from many
>> more channels simultaneously than even the most skilled human can
>> process is definitely worth evaluating as to whether it creates a
>> statistically distinct population warranting a separate category.
>
> Memory keyers with dueling/repeating CQ were a "significant
> qualitative advance" and essentially made SO2R possible. I do
> not want to see SO2R or memory keyers "singled out" either.
There is a big difference between alternating transmissions between two
channels and receiving on dozens and dozens of channels.
>> Using history as a guide, there are three contradictory
>> examples: power, spotting networks, and SO2R. Power differences
>> clearly create distinct populations of scores. Spotting networks
>> have not been shown to provide a competitive advantage - the top
>> SO scores regularly exceed the top SOA scores.
>
> History is not necessarily a valid guide otherwise why would high
> power be a separate entry classification when big antennas are not?
> High power may provide 10 to 12 dB (1500 W vs. 100/150 W) advantage
> on transmit but big antennas provide the same 12 db advantage (stack
> of three 4 el yagis or tribanders vs. a dipole at 40 to 50 feet) on
> both transmit and receive.
It is not that antenna systems are not a distinguishing factor - everyone
knows they are often more significant than power level - it is that we have
no reliable validated metric by which to assess the differences in antenna
systems (including the effects of terrain, local noise level, ground
conductivity, etc). Power level, on the other hand, is very easy to
quantify and group. Every rule and category must be easy for the competitor
to understand and comply with. i.e. - How many watts - A, B, or C?
Categories based on antenna systems would be very difficult to define - I
have empirically verified this by attempting to develop a figure of merit
for the WRTC in Seattle. Fuggidaboudit.
>> There may be no line of reasoning that definitively answers
>> the question. We may have to undergo a period of evaluation
>> during which this sort of technology is evaluated for its effect
>> on actual scores. This will be difficult because the technology
>> won't "hold still" long enough for a true evaluation, but at some
>> point it will become clear whether multi-channel information
>> extraction actually creates a new class of stations.
>
> (snip)
>
> Radiosport does not currently discriminate against big antennas,
> or memory keyers, or the skill to listen to multiple radios at
> the same time, or the use of code readers, or the use of SCP,
> or the use of panadapters, etc. Do you, or anyone else really
> believe it is possible to develop a FAIR handicap matrix to
> deal with all the variables? Do you really believe contest
> sponsors are ready to foot the cost to increase the number of
> entry classes by three or four times? Do you really believe
> such changes would benefit radiosport? Do you really believe
> limitations on technology are consistent with the basis and
> purpose of the amateur service?
Decaf, Joe!
Of course not - see above. Without suitable metrics, complete equalization
is impossible - thus presenting a ridiculous argument, so as to imply the
equally extreme position of "no categories are possible" as the counter
position.
The question is "what are the APPROPRIATE categories?" Appropriate
categories enable peer-based competition and encourage participation, thus
furthering the basis and purpose. Appropriateness must be determined within
the constraints on the individual participant and the resources available to
the contest sponsor. It's perfectly legitimate to question whether a
specific set of categories remain appropriate in the face of technological
change. Categories have come and gone in the past and they will do so
again - and radiosport did not collapse, nor did innovation cease.
> (snip)
>
> It would be a shame if after 50 years of pursuing technological
> improvements in radiosport for amateur radio to suddenly decide
> all the technology that was "fair" had already been invented
> and there was no room to consider technological improvement in
> previously unexplored areas of the sport.
This is a straw man argument. Let's be clear. Very few posts have
suggested banning any technology completely - certainly none of mine.
There must be a legitimate, recognized home for all manner of technologies
whereby experimentation is encouraged and those who use the technologies can
be proud of their achievements. For the sport to stay healthy, categories
need to be appropriate to the available technology, easy to understand, and
administered fairly. Rules should be understandable by the average
competitor and enforceable to the extent that the limited, essentially
volunteer resources of the contest sponsors can achieve. The goals of the
game we play should align broadly with the basis and purpose of the service
in which we are licensed. My position is that technology has moved the
balancing point between these three requirements and some adjustment of the
game is warranted.
73, Ward N0AX
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|