Dave,
(continuing my non-official disclaimer)
I'm seeing your point exactly, and this conundrum is precisely why I keep
trying to re-focus the discussion back on the basic definition of what it
means to be a single operator.
Once that is established, then one can compare other things to it to then
determine what those things should be categorized as.
There is a historical perspective on this also. These different entry
categories were created over time and a better understanding of why and
how they came to be may help in understanding them more clearly. There are
detailed histories of the contest that can be read elsewhere and I'm not
going to try to cover all of it here.
For now, please just forget about the differences between multi-op and
assisted - they're not opposites or even alternatives to each other so
comparing them as you are is really not a valid comparison. This is what
is causing you to miss the point.
Some paraphrased definitions to make this easier:
1) Single op means one guy doing everything.
2) Multi-op means more than one guy doing everything at one QTH.
3) Single op assisted means one guy doing everything PLUS getting spotting
information to assist him while operating alone.
A couple of comments on specific points you've made:
> What I am arguing is that the distinction between multi-op and assisted
is not at all as clear as you have been saying it is...<
To the contrary, the distinction is precisely as I have described. It has
nothing to do with what you get from another operator, it has to do with
where the other operator is an if he's only doing the providing of spot
info to you alone through some arrangement. If he's in your shack doing
this, he's another operator. If he's in another shack elsewhere and only
providing spots to you, this is an illegal multi-op again, in my opinion.
> The ONLY valid distinction I can see is that a DX Summit spot is
> potentially available to everyone while I might be the only one to
> benefit from the other situation, but in any case your definition of
> single op is not based upon that.
This is a great point. All assistance should be public data - i.e.; not
only for the benefit of one other station. If it is provided for the
benefit of one other station, how can you claim that the spotter is not
part of the one station he is supporting and therefore would be an illegal
multi-site multi-op?
That also begs the question, well what about a local skimmer? I have to
admit I have a hard time with this one because I would argue that a local
skimmer that is not publicly made available should probably cause someone
using this to be multi-op, but that opens another can of worms - doesn't
it?
Dave, there is no reason for either of us to "shut up". I am 100% certain
that there are others who are pondering these same issues and our public
discussion of our perspectives may help those people formulate their
opinions and perhaps even clarify their understanding of these
controversial issues.
My objective is to help others understand these issues and to eventually
have all contest participants have a common understanding. While I know
this is not likely, I think the objective is worthwhile enough to keep
trying.
73,
Bob W5OV
>
> On 11/30/2011 1:08 PM, w5ov@w5ov.com wrote:
>> Disclaimer: (repeated) 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 - Thanks for the reminder - yes, this is just my opinion. However,
>> I
>> do not think that makes my opinion any less valid.
>>
>> If you have more than one operator, you are *by definition*
>> multi-operator.
>>
>> To claim otherwise defies all known forms of logic.
>>
>> Let's cross over into the uncharted territory of:
>>
>> What do you call it if we were to have two operators at
>> two different locations collaborating together but
>> just geographically separated?
>>
>> In my opinion, this would be considered cheating. These two operators
>> collaborating as if they are multi-op but are clearly violating the
>> single
>> location limits of a station as defined in most contest rules - e.g.;
>> the
>> 500m circle etc.
>>
>> So, all of this is covered in the rules today as long as you're willing
>> to
>> accept what the rules actually say.
>>
>> The key issue here (again) is that we're always ignoring what a single
>> op
>> is. Once we have the definition of a single op clear in our collective
>> minds as one who alone locates *and* identifies every callsign he puts
>> in
>> his log, whatever else we're considering that does not align 100% with
>> that definition clearly becomes something else.
>>
>> So, if you have more than one operator at your station, you are
>> multi-op.
>>
>> If you operate alone and use assistance to locate and/or identify
>> callsigns, you are assisted.
>>
>> A multi-op at more than one location is already forbidden by the rules,
>> so
>> such a 2-site collaboration as you have suggested is already covered and
>> not permitted.
>>
>> Yes, it's really that simple.
>>
>> 73,
>>
>> Bob W5OV
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> No, it really isn't that simple. What's the difference between
>>> operating together by network versus operating together by physical
>>> proximity. If anything, networked collaboration is less work.
>>>
>>> The only way it is "really that simple" is if the contest sponsor
>>> specifically states it that way in the rules. Since you aren't
>>> currently speaking in an official capacity, at this point that's just
>>> your opinion.
>>>
>>> Dave AB7E
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/30/2011 12:27 PM, w5ov@w5ov.com wrote:
>>>> 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
|