Randy,
I still think you are missing the point. No one is saying not to have
assisted categories. By the same logic, why not also eliminate the
differentiation between HP, LP and QRP? I'm sure there are violators there
also. Couldn't the QRP guys choose their power even if there score was
lumped in with the 1500W stations? "Having fun" isn't the only reason
people enter contests. We enter to compete with others in the same class.
Whether a great operator QRP can beat a so-so op LP is irrelevant. I
certainly know that when I enter a contest unassisted I get less mults than
when a skimmer and other ops are helping me. In SS I could get a cw clean
sweep assisted. I seldom get it unassisted. But there IS satisfaction for
about 2/3 of the entrants in most contests in finding our own mults when we
choose unassisted category.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. And if it's simply a rules thing, enforce
it if you can. If you can't, let others descend to the Lance Armstrong
category of competition. The rest of us know who we are, and we have a
pretty good idea who the others are. For example, in SS, even without a
computer I recognize when I've been spotted by a skimmer and a handful of
A's, B's and Q's immediately pile up along with the U's. I don't like it,
but it's no reason to change the class as they're not the honorable top
contenders anyway.
I'll bet there's an algorithm that could be devised for log checking to
scientifically do what I do by intuition and let the organizers hand out
yellow cards for suspected cheaters. "Your contacts with 15 different run
stations on 3 bands all within 5 minutes of those stations commencing their
runs indicate the possible use of spotting assistance. Please review your
operating practices or entry categories for future entries in this contest."
Time, frequency and band tags in the log will easily track a pattern of
spotting and distinguish from the unassisted S&P op who systematically
"mines" a band for contacts and mults, even SO2R.
73,
Jim, K4QPL
----- Original Message -----
From: "Randy Thompson K5ZD" <k5zd@charter.net>
To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 7:40 AM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Non-assisted & Assisted
In many ways they (single ops) compete with them (assisted) now. Both are
chasing the same contacts on the same bands. True, some people will
always
enjoy doing things the "classic" way. But, the reality is that ham radio
is
constantly changing.
In CQWW SSB 2012 there were 7321 single operator entries. 2460 (33%) of
them
were in the assisted category. Looking through the scores, there are very
few places where the top assisted score in an area beats the top single
op.
Most contests outside of ARRL and CQ do not distinguish between assisted
and
not. Most RTTY contests do not. People seem to have plenty of fun in
those
contests.
Even with all single ops in one category, each person has the option to
operate however they wish. My original point was that ham radio in the
last
15 years has embraced the DX Cluster as a normal tool for DXing and
operating. Perhaps contesting should start to accept that.
Randy, K5ZD
-----Original Message-----
From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of
Jim Jordan
Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 4:10 AM
To: Radio K0HB
Cc: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Non-assisted & Assisted
100% agree, Hans. Anyone who has never enjoyed the thrill of finding his
own contacts without assistance has never experienced real operating.
Fishermen catching their own shouldn't have to compete with those
shooting fish in a barrel.
73,
Jim, K4QPL
----- Original Message -----
From: "Radio K0HB" <kzerohb@gmail.com>
To: <k5zd@charter.net>
Cc: "Pete Smith N4ZR" <n4zr@contesting.com>; <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 8:50 PM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Non-assisted & Assisted
> Sorry Randy, but "pure" SO should NOT be required to compete with
assisted
> operators. There is no logical reason to require it.
>
> There is a large community of good contesters who wish to compete with
> their non-assisted peers, not with those who use outside assistance.
>
> Why does this stupid idea keep rising out of the mud?
>
> 73, de Hans, K0HB/K7
>
> On Friday, January 25, 2013, Randy Thompson K5ZD wrote:
>
>> For these contests where there is no assisted category, instead of
making
>> yet another category, why not just allow single ops to use
assistance?!
>>
>> Anyone licensed in the last 15 years has never experienced life
without
>> the
>> DX Cluster. Perhaps it is time to accept this as it is - the new
normal.
>>
>> Randy, K5ZD
>>
>>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: CQ-Contest
>> > [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com<javascript:;>]
>> On Behalf Of
>> > Pete Smith N4ZR
>> > Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 2:32 PM
>> > To: cq-contest@contesting.com <javascript:;>
>> > Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Non-assisted & Assisted
>> >
>> > What Rich says is correct. I would just add that the ARRL 10 and
160
>> > contests are severely anachronistic in this respect. Nobody is
>> > suggesting that assistance be allowed for "pure" single-ops, but
surely
>> > there should be a SOA category in these contests. That there is not
>> > dates
>> > back to the earliest days of DX clusters. To my knowledge, nobody
has
>> > advanced a reason for keeping the status quo.
>> >
>> > I have been in correspondence with the CAC and various directors
about
>> > this, and one told me that action might be taken in the January ARRL
>> > Board meeting, which has just taken place. Why it requires a
decision
>> > at
>> > that level is beyond me, but that's what we have. Now waiting for
>> > detailed minutes to learn what, if anything, was done.
>> >
>> > 73, Pete N4ZR
>> > Check out the Reverse Beacon Network at
>> > http://reversebeacon.net,
>> > blog at reversebeacon.blogspot.com.
>> > For spots, please go to your favorite
>> > ARC V6 or VE7CC DX cluster node.
>> >
>> > On 1/25/2013 8:51 AM, Richard DiDonna NN3W wrote:
>> > > Usually if it says nothing, the assumption is that you must
classify
>> > yourself as multi-single as the single operator rules have language
>> > about
>> > the -operator- doing all of the activity.
>> > >
>> > > ARRL 160 and ARRL 10 do not have separate assisted categories -
>> > necessitating that assisted ops enter as multi single entries.
>> > >
>> > > 73 Rich NN3W
>> > >
>> > > Sent from my Verizon Wireless Phone
>> > >
>> > > ----- Reply message -----
>> > > From: Ktfrog007@aol.com <javascript:;>
>> > > Date: Fri, Jan 25, 2013 7:30 am
>> > > Subject: [CQ-Contest] Non-assisted & Assisted
>> > > To: <cq-contest@contesting.com <javascript:;>>
>> > >
>> > > If a contest's rules say nothing about Assisted operation, does
that
>> > > mean it's allowed without restriction?
>> > >
>> > > Note that Single-Op has no uniform definition. For example, in
the
>> > > ARRL RTTY Roundup, Single-Ops cannot be Assisted, while in the CQ
WPX
>> > > RTTY everyone can operate Assisted.
>> > >
>> > > 73,
>> > > Kermit (Ken) AB1J
>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > > CQ-Contest mailing list
>> > > CQ-Contest@contesting.com <javascript:;>
>> > > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > > CQ-Contest mailing list
>> > > CQ-Contest@contesting.com <javascript:;>
>> > > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>> > >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > CQ-Contest mailing list
>> > CQ-Contest@contesting.com <javascript:;>
>> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>> CQ-Contest@contesting.com <javascript:;>
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>>
>
>
> --
> 73, de Hans, K0HB
> "Just a boy and his radio"
> --
> Sea stories at --------> http://K0HB.wordpress.com
> Superstition trails ---> http://OldSlowHans.com
> _______________________________________________
> 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
_______________________________________________
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
|