This discussion is valuable for people to understand the rules a bit
deeper than for the obvious viewpoints that are directly written in.
I really think it is Fun to share the thoughts regarding these questions.
And, for any newcomers, these discussions are important.
They have not seen these writings. And - IMO - it would be unfair to
tell them to go read the archive .. the information we discuss renews
all the time.
Defining a newcomer: can be a contester who has been singleop for many
years but now plans to participate a M/2. There is a bunch of thinking
Grasp this: as there is discussion on CQ-Contest reflector, the rule
thinking&writing groups are following this think tank development and
outcomes. Even a halt is an outcome. For the rule groups, all these
are important points to consider how to write in.
Rule writers sure want to try to deliver the clearest rules possible
.. given a fact the rules must fit in a couple of letter size magazine
pages with a decent font.
Take this: these discussions sure provide to rules development.
> This theoretical discussion repeats frequently and goes no where.
> All of this is because of the error of trying to define "assistance".
> Instead, focus on what it means to be a single operator. This is where one
> person actively locates, decodes and identifies every callsign that ends
> up in his log. No one else is involved in that activity. There is no
> internet connection in that activity. There is no device that locates or
> identifies potential callsigns in that activity. A non-assisted single
> operator performs all activities that lead to a callsign ending up in his
> contest log.
> Anything outside of that simple Single Operator definition is either:
> 1) Assistance
> 2) Multi-operator.
> In this case, the use of RBN would clearly be outside the definition of
> single operator. #1 or #2? Subject to debate.
> Bob W5OV
> P.S. This is my personal opinion and does not necessarily represent any
> contest committee that I am a member of.
>> Ok guys,
>> First of all I want to remind you that my interest is purely theoretical.
>> am not going to use this technique when SO not assisted unless contest
>> sponsors say "it is OK to use it". All I am trying to do is to find as
>> close to perfect definition of "not assisted" as possible with your help.
>> So far there are a lot of contradictions in most of the arguments. Until
>> skimmers appeared assistance was interpreted as getting helping
>> information from other human beings. It is not anymore. Still getting
>> outside information is allowed in some cases (WWV, beacons) and not
>> in other cases. I am afraid the border line is quickly turning into 'grey
>> 73, Igor UA9CDC
>> 2012/5/31 Dale Putnam <email@example.com>
>>> And that... specifically is what makes it "assisted" Outside
>>> information, not readily available without outside assistance.
>>> --... ...--
>>> Dale - WC7S in Wy
>>> In essence I would not get no outside help in locating,
>>> > identifying and working stations in the contest. I just get accurate
>>> > to date information about propagation which is basically more accurate
>>> > what I might have got with the help of propagation prediction
>>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest mailing list