Dave,
The point is if you're operating alone, you're a single operator and if
you're not operating alone, you're a multi-operator by definition. It's
really that simple.
-Bob
>
> Hi, Bob.
>
> I pretty much expected to get some "feedback" from that comment, and
> from my own personal bias I might want to argue the same thing. I was
> merely trying to illustrate that CW Skimmer isn't really the fundamental
> issue here when discussing what may or may not be "taking the sport out
> of radiosport".
>
> But if we stand back a bit and look at things from a distance, what's
> really the difference between these two scenarios:
>
> 1. I'm operating from my QTH and W5OV is simply listening from his
> QTH. W5OV hears an interesting station and spots it to DX Summit. I
> have N1MM set up to post spots from DX summit to the bandmap. I see the
> spot, N1MM tells me that I need it, and I work the station. W5OV
> provided ONLY the initial information and I acted on it.
>
> 2. I'm operating from my QTH and W5OV is sitting five feet away from me
> listening on a spare receiver. W5OV hears an interesting spot and
> passes me a piece of paper with the callsign and frequency written on
> it. I read the note, decide on my own that I need it, and work the
> station. W5OV provided ONLY the initial information and I acted on it.
>
> I don't really see any difference (if anything, I had to make an
> evaluation in the second case that I didn't have to in the first case),
> and it's one of the reasons that I've never fully bought into the idea
> that assisted and multi-op are fundamentally different concepts ... at
> least as far as QSO alerting goes. Admittedly I'm a shades-of-gray type
> of person, but possibly you can find a fundamental difference between
> the two situations above and explain it to me. About the only thing I
> can come up with is that if W5OV were in my shack I would be able to
> advise him where I wanted him to look (frequency or beam heading) ...
> but that represents an opportunity to act illicitly, not necessarily an
> illicit act itself.
>
> I'm not a total anarchist, though. I do think QSO assistance (another
> op actually making a QSO) is a different story and clearly represents
> more than one op. Heck, I'm even in the boat that says having someone
> fix your amp or antenna while you continue operating is "multi-op".
>
> Again, I'm not trying to argue the ethics, morality, legitimacy, or
> desirability of any rule definition. As far as I'm concerned, the
> contest sponsor alone determines that (without any need to justify it)
> and his only burden is to clearly and unambiguously explain it to the
> rest of us.
>
> 73,
> Dave AB7E
>
>
>
> On 11/30/2011 9:48 AM, w5ov@w5ov.com wrote:
>> Disclaimer: This is my personal opinion; it is not necessarily
>> representative of the official position of any contest committee I may
>> be
>> a member of.
>>
>> Dave,
>>
>> It is my opinion that there is no circumstance where having a second
>> operator involved would not be considered multi-operator.
>>
>> Regardless of what he's doing, he MUST be considered a second operator.
>> Therefore, having more than one operator would shift such an operation
>> to
>> a multi-operator category.
>>
>> 73,
>>
>> Bob W5OV
>>
>>
>>
>>> Hi, Mark.
>>>
>>> Yes, I am aware of all that, but I still don't think the original
>>> comment was actually trying to address a rule issue, particularly
>>> becauseeliminating unassisted categories covers a lot more ground than
>>> just CW Skimmer ... it also would include allowing packet or internet
>>> spotting clusters and possibly even having a second op in the shack
>>> feeding you spots from a second receiver..
>>>
>>> Regarding the various opinions on what constitutes "sport" in
>>> contesting, that also could extend to other areas besides callsign
>>> spotting as dozens of previous reflector threads have flogged. Super
>>> Check Partial, Call History files, logging programs that insert the
>>> exchange for you, and memory keyers could all (depending upon one's
>>> personal perspective) be viewed as taking at least some of the
>>> individual "sport" out of contesting. That's why I keep trying to make
>>> the point that the "sport" in radiosport for any particular contest is
>>> precisely and exclusively whatever the contest sponsor says it is ...
>>> period. It is not based upon what we used to be fond of.
>>>
>>> 73,
>>> Dave AB7E
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/29/2011 7:31 AM, Mark Bailey wrote:
>>>> Hi Dave:
>>>>
>>>> Yes. Some contests, including WAE, don't have "unassisted"
>>>> categories.
>>>> There are people
>>>> advocating the elimination of "unassisted" categories in the other
>>>> contests.
>>>>
>>>> 73,
>>>>
>>>> Mark, KD4D
>>>>
>>>> On 11/29/2011 12:13 AM, David Gilbert wrote:
>>>>> I'm confused regarding the point here. In what major contest is the
>>>>> use
>>>>> of CW Skimmer allowed for unassisted categories (other than in Blind
>>>>> Mode)? Isn't all of that already covered in the rules? Kind of like
>>>>> it
>>>>> not being legal to have three people rotating through the chair while
>>>>> claiming single op. Or not being able to run a KW while claiming
>>>>> QRP.
>>>>> Did I miss something?
>>>>>
>>>>> Dave AB7E
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 11/28/2011 6:12 PM, Radio K0HB wrote:
>>>>>> In my opinion, Jim has it exactly right.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 73, de Hans, K0HB
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: Jim Reisert AD1C
>>>>>> Sent: Monday, November 28, 2011 12:34 PM
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't care if you built the skimmer setup yourself without any
>>>>>> outside help, and you're only getting spots from your own skimmer.
>>>>>> I
>>>>>> don't even care if you wrote the software yourself! Taking a break
>>>>>> from running to find stations to work is an important skill which
>>>>>> separates the great S/O unassisted stations from the good ones. In
>>>>>> my
>>>>>> opinion, having hardware/software to do this for you takes the
>>>>>> "sport"
>>>>>> out of Radiosport.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 73 - Jim AD1C
>>>>>>
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|