Hi Paul.
Thank you for taking the time to reply.
I've been operating in SOAB Assisted for the past five years, always
SO2R from LP1H and I must agree with you, the sense of accomplishment
when you find the mults yourself is truly unique and cannot be
compared to the same situation using dx clusters. This is always the
case when the clunky i'net connection is down and I still need to keep
looking for mults, but without help.
Also, and at least from these latitudes, the use of packet cluster can
be detrimental to your QSO rate. It is hard to find the balance and if
you don't know who to call and when, you will probably find yourself
spending precious time calling someone you can easily work a couple of
hours later.
I surely also understand Jim's concerns about gigantic pile ups with
all stations calling exactly in the same frequency due to the RBN
spots. I hope it is just a matter of time till ops realize we need to
start calling stations a little off the spotted frequency.
That being said, I still believe the distinction between SO and SO(A)
makes no sense nowadays.
Problem here is that the foundation of your reasoning is exactly the
same someone could have used long ago when logging software started to
emerge:
People are start to be less skilled because of the use of a logging
tool. They won't be as effective as they were yesteryear handling
emergency traffic because they got used to typing in keyboards instead
of using pen an paper. A big portion of them won't even be able to
send cw using a paddle, or a key, because of the CW sending feature of
these computer programs. They won't be as good at copying stations in
the middle of the QRM/QRN because they will be used to relying in the
Super Check Partial feature built in.
Some would have said: Computer logging is the END of true old
fashioned and effective operators!
These pieces of software represent an unfair advantage over the Real
Single Op who is supposed to use just a pen and paper and the radios
but nothing else. Probably an electronic keyer, but no more than that.
Well, perhaps the electronic keyer is the devil too! Many won't be
able to use a straight key anymore! What will be of us if everything
else fails and the only way out is to send out code in a totally
manual fashion!!?
It's simply unbelievable someone could have thought that. Isn't it?
Well you are thinking in the same way about a tool that represents a
whole lot less help to the operator when compared to the logging
software.
At least logging software could have been used to create an effective
distinction between single op versus single op Assisted (those using
logging software). Because in the end that could have been proved to
some extent to make sure no one cheats. That is not the case with the
use of packet clusters.
The distinction about single operators and multi operators relies on
who is actually logging the stations and commanding the radios and the
rest of the equipment. It is not about the use of information. Even
less, about the use of information that can hardly be proved by
contest organizers.
The distinction between SO and SO(A) only allow cheaters to cheat
even more over those who have decide not to use that tool. An it has
been the case since the SO(A) inception.
Imagine creating a SO (PA) Single Op Propagation Assisted. Real Single
ops sense the HF conditions themselves. They should not use any way of
propagation alert. Those using HF Conditions alerts will be classified
as SO(PA)
C'mon... simply non sense.
Vy 73.
Martin, LU5DX
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 5:55 AM, Paul O'Kane <pokane@ei5di.com> wrote:
>
> On 12/08/2012 17:02, Martin , LU5DX wrote:
>
>> I think technology presents new challenges and new opportunities.
>
> Is that intended to imply that all new technology is
> inherently good and appropriate? If so, it's way off
> the mark.
>
>
>> is hard for me to see a software developer so against new technology
>> when he developed a logging software himself.
>
> Logging software is just another tool, or accessory,
> to improve operator efficiency. It doesn't undermine
> the distinguishing characteristic of amateur radio
> contesting, which, IMHO, is to use no communications
> modes or frequencies, other than those corresponding
> to the bands and modes of your entry class, to find,
> facilitate, enable or make QSOs.
>
> And yet, that's exactly what thousands of "contesters"
> are doing - with the internet, in an amateur radio
> contest! Unbelievable. And then we wonder why we're
> in a mess.
>
>
>> Once again, I would like to say that the distinction between single
>> ops and single ops "assisted" is not necessary.
>
> And I would like to say it is every bit as necessary
> as the distinction between power levels.
>
>
> 73,
> Paul EI5DI
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|