> There appears to be a lot of people out there who do not have, nor want
> to train for, the operating skills others possess. Their thinking is to
> substitute technology for their laziness and/or lack of ability. It's
> commonly called "dumbing down". Sure, take the easy way and what really
> do you gain?
I don't think laziness (flame bait) is the case at all. I will speculate 90%
of contesting participants enter for reasons beyond the expectation to win
the competition. To the other 10% of the operators the competition isn't
life or death, it's more important than that! For the 90 percenters slugging
it out on the weekend, there's a whole list of reasons why they turn the
radio on and operate a contest. Imagine this, some of them don't even read
the rules before the engage in the competition. I can hear them now...
"Rules? We don't need no stinkin' rules!"
<sarcastic humor=off>
Will Skimmer "dumb down" CW? No doubt it will help, but it is not the root
cause. You're shooting the messenger.
Everyone knows there is no longer a need to develop CW skills to get a
license in the first place. My belief is this rule change is the root cause
of your "traditional CW contesting as we know it" to change in the future.
Don't blame technology. Blame the rulemakers.
73 de Bob - KØRC in MN
----- Original Message -----
From: "Doug Renwick" <ve5ra@sasktel.net>
To: "'Bill Tippett'" <btippett@alum.mit.edu>; <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 6:45 PM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Eliminate SO Unassisted?
> There appears to be a lot of people out there who do not have, nor want
> to train for, the operating skills others possess. Their thinking is to
> substitute technology for their laziness and/or lack of ability. It's
> commonly called "dumbing down". Sure, take the easy way and what really
> do you gain?
>
> There is also a small group, who for their convoluted reasons, want to
> destroy the historical concept of cw contesting. An analogy is the
> small group who have destroyed the traditional concept of marriage.
> Some call it progress. Progress to what end I ask?
>
> Great that the WRTC 2010 team championship will not allow assistance.
> However, what control do they have on the selection of teams qualifying
> for the championship?
>
> I consider super check partial to be a form of assistance. Another
> method to substitute skill with technology. As some others have stated,
> throw out the rules and anything goes, which is probably the way this
> will all end.
>
> Doug
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
>
> VE4ZT:
> >We can accept a class for packet. Why is it so hard to
> accept it if Skimmer is deemed to be equivalent to packet?
>
> Not only equivalent but *indistinguishable* from
> Packet by log-checking software. If Skimmer is OK for
> single-op unassisted, and you cannot distinguish the
> operating signature from assisted, then the obvious
> solution is to make one single-op class without any
> restrictions. In the words of K3MD on the Skimmer
> poll page:
>
> "Most likely the way this should be handled is to place users in the
> assisted or MS category, depending on the contest. However, since
> there is widespread abuse of the assisted category in entries sent in
> as SO, the wider question would be, "should the SO (nonassisted)
> category be eliminated?"
>
> http://www.contesting.com/survey/204
> (BTW that poll is now closed, 32% for Skimmer, 58% against)
>
> In fact there is now a new poll question by VE5ZX which
> poses K3MD's question:
>
> "WAE and RDXC recently merged assisted and non-assisted single
> operator categories. Would you favour such a move for the CQWW contest?
> "
>
> http://www.contesting.com/survey/
>
> But surprisingly the WRTC 2010 organizers are being
> pig-headed. Are they anti-technology Luddites? Don't they know that
> the true test of operating skill is all these neat technology tools
> and not the operators themselves?
>
>
> "No way!" was the answer from WRTC 2010 organizer Igor "Harry"
> Booklan RA3AUU when asked if the Skimmer would be allowed in the
> World Radiosport Team Championships in Russia.
>
> "No cluster. No skimmer. No super check partial. No other
> assistance," Booklan told radio-sport.net.
>
> http://www.radio-sport.net/skimmer8.htm
>
> This thing just keeps getting weirder and weirder...(and
> funnier)! As I said to K3MD, "
>
> I love your sports medicine logic. Since so many athletes are using
> steroids, let's just declare steroids legal." ;-)
>
>
> 73, Bill W4ZV
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|