Hi Mats,
Thank you for your note.
Reducing SOAB(A) to just point and clicking by Hans sounded really funny to
me.
But now you saying SOAB(A) involves laziness is even funnier!
All the SOAB(A) efforts I made from LP1H involved having my rear end
sticking to the chair for 48 hours. In 2010 after a health issue that
involved two herniated discs the week before the contest and while on
"really strong pain pills), I still managed to sit for 48 hours straight.
So I don't see laziness there.
I can tell you one thing for sure. Plain SOAB is a lot less fatiguing than
SOAB(A). And it's easier than SOAB(A), just tune the dial, stop at the
mults you hear and work'em. I mean I'm saying this after:
5 SOAB (A) entries totalizing: 23051 Qs in CQ WW DX CW Between 2008 and
2012 from LP1H
2 SOAB entries totalizing: 9889 Qs in CQ WW DX CW Between 2013 and 2014
from CE3CT
I really appreciate you Mats, but I really cannot understand your
reasoning. Where that perception comes from.
What Germans did in their WRTC qualifying rules is a great step forward to
making sure honest competition at least in what packet abuse is concerned
is achieved. I knew Paul was going to bring the rest of the list of
cheating activities cleverly developed by cheaters, like ghost ops, power
abuse, remote mult stations and the rest.
Does that mean I'm switching back to SOAB(A) to attempt to gain a sit in
WRTC 2018. Nope. I do what I enjoy the most, but that doesn't mean things
need to be the way I like them. Things need to be the best way possible to
make sure results reflect reality and we move forward towards Fair Play.
Let me tell you something, there is a way to solve those too. As I said
before, to eliminate ghost ops: streaming video or clips uploaded to
Youtube right after the test. Takes little investment and high profile
stations can prove what they do.
The rest of the list should be worked on. That's it.
Vy 73,
Martin, LU5DX
On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 12:24 PM, Mats Strandberg <sm6lrr@gmail.com> wrote:
> Martin,
>
> Most of your points are valid, but the better contester is the one that
> does ALL his contesting without any dependence on cluster, RBN or similar
> tools.
>
> I work equally often SOAB and SOAB(A). Both disciplines are fun, but one
> of them is "lazy man"s choice". Sometimes (like this past weekend) I
> decided to be lazy.... and for sure did not end up in SOAB...
>
> Let's face the fact - WRTC should be the competition where the elite of
> the elite should meet!
>
> If you favor clicking skills, then computer games is the arena... Not
> First Class contesting like WRTC!
>
> I moreover also strongly disagree with your belief that Assisted and
> Non-Assisted should be merged into one category. It will be the separation
> of Real Contesting from Artificial
> Contesting...
>
> Operator skills in contesting should be based on the ability to balance
> Run rate with S&P efficiency, managing propagation changes and Grey Line
> influence - not your ability to "click the cluster" and automatically send
> away your call with another click.
>
> I am surprised if German organizers of WRTC had the intention to equalize
> SOAB with SOAB(A) when contesters should qualify for next WRTC! Maybe (and
> hopefully) a clarification will follow after this debate.
>
> 73 de RM2D (SM6LRR), Mats
>
>
> On Tuesday, December 2, 2014, Martin , LU5DX <lu5dx@lucg.com.ar> wrote:
>
>> Hi Hans,
>> With all due respect.
>> I believe you do not have all the information you need to make your
>> statement.
>> To say that, it would be really interesting if you tried to enter SOAB(A)
>> in a serious effort, trying to beat a personal best of yours or a State
>> Record previously set in SOAB.
>> If you do, you will realize that it goes way beyond of just pointing and
>> clicking to be competitive and break a SOAB mark, but this time in
>> SOAB(A).
>> I have entered SOAB for eight years in CQ WW and other contests and last
>> year I switched back to SOAB. Simply because I wanted to try something
>> different. I find SOAB more rewarding though. But SOAB(A) ops deserve all
>> my respect and admiration.
>> You do need to be even better than SOAB at balancing your run/mult time.
>> You need to determine when to call a mult or not. You need to really
>> listen
>> to the calls of the DX station you are calling because spots get busted
>> quite often.
>> You need all the skills involved in SOAB plus you need to be able to
>> handle
>> tons of information that go against the "Rate is King" rule.
>>
>> Despite that, I always believed and I still do, that SOAB/SOAB(A) should
>> be
>> merged to eliminate one of the many ways cheaters have to cheat in our
>> hobby and ruin it.
>>
>> Vy 73,
>>
>> Martin, LU5DX
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 2:00 AM, Radio K0HB <kzerohb@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > That is truly tragic as it favors "point and click" skills over
>> "radioman"
>> > skills.
>> >
>> >
>> > 73, de Hans, K0HB
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Monday, Dec 1, 2014 at 21:50, Randy Thompson K5ZD <k5zd@charter.net
>> >,
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > The surprise for me is that Assisted scores are compared against
>> > Unassisted.
>> >
>> > This really says that if you want maximum points, you have to plan on
>> >
>> > working Assisted.
>> >
>> >
>> > ___________________________________________
>> >
>> > 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
|