CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] Why SuperCheckPartial makes you assisted

To: Stu Phillips <stu@k6tu.net>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Why SuperCheckPartial makes you assisted
From: Jorge Diez CX6VM <cx6vm.jorge@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 06:29:34 -0300
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
Hi Stu 

Ok that is your personal desition, but rules point the limit from assisted and 
not assisted 

If I follow what you think, I must log with a pen and paper, with all this 
tools off (SCP, history files), the software still tell me when I log a dupe

73,
Jorge
CX6VM/CW5W

Enviado desde mi iPhone

> El 23 nov. 2015, a las 23:45, Stu Phillips <stu@k6tu.net> escribió:
> 
> Marc,
> 
> Discussion is not meaningless and I made the same point about enforceable 
> rules.  Its a matter of personal philosophy.
> 
> One of my friends told me he’d spent an entire evening arguing with a 
> professor of philosophy at Stanford University about the “heap of sand 
> paradox”.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox
> 
> "A typical formulation involves a heap of sand, from which grains are 
> individually removed. Under the assumption that removing a single grain does 
> not turn a heap into a non-heap, the paradox is to consider what happens when 
> the process is repeated enough times: is a single remaining grain still a 
> heap? (Or are even no grains at all a heap?) If not, when did it change from 
> a heap to a non-heap."
> 
> Like the heap, at some point what is acceptable transfers into what is not.
> 
> I’m just glad there is an assisted category so my conscience will remain 
> clear!
> 
> It’s a matter of where one personally draws the line – not about 
> unenforceable rules.
> Hopefully this is now clear.
> 73’s
> Stu
> 
> 
> From: Marc Domen <on7ss.oo9o@gmail.com<mailto:on7ss.oo9o@gmail.com>>
> Date: Monday, November 23, 2015 at 6:34 PM
> To: Stu Phillips <stu@k6tu.net<mailto:stu@k6tu.net>>
> Cc: Contest Reflector 
> <cq-contest@contesting.com<mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>>, Randy Lake 
> <randyn1kwf@gmail.com<mailto:randyn1kwf@gmail.com>>
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Why SuperCheckPartial makes you assisted
> 
> 
> There is no way to check if anyone is using SCP.
> This discussion is meaningless.
> 
> 73 Marc, ON7SD aka OO9O
> 
> sent from my HTC320...
> 
> Op 24 nov. 2015 03:26 schreef "Stu Phillips" 
> <stu@k6tu.net<mailto:stu@k6tu.net>>:
> Randy,
> 
> I didn’t suggest doing away with SCP – its a great tool.
> 
> For me, its a personal choice and about the spirit of the rules, not the 
> letter there of.
> 
> Eliminating SCP or mandating it as assistance isn’t the solution especially 
> as such a rule is pretty much unenforceable.
> 
> Personal decision.  Nothing more or less.
> Stu K6TU
> 
> From: Randy Lake 
> <randyn1kwf@gmail.com<mailto:randyn1kwf@gmail.com><mailto:randyn1kwf@gmail.com<mailto:randyn1kwf@gmail.com>>>
> Date: Monday, November 23, 2015 at 4:01 PM
> To: Stu Phillips 
> <stu@k6tu.net<mailto:stu@k6tu.net><mailto:stu@k6tu.net<mailto:stu@k6tu.net>>>
> Cc: 
> "CQ-Contest@contesting.com<mailto:CQ-Contest@contesting.com><mailto:CQ-Contest@contesting.com<mailto:CQ-Contest@contesting.com>>"
>  
> <CQ-Contest@contesting.com<mailto:CQ-Contest@contesting.com><mailto:CQ-Contest@contesting.com<mailto:CQ-Contest@contesting.com>>>
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Why SuperCheckPartial makes you assisted
> 
> I, for one, do not think that the SCP adds to assisted any more than station 
> automation and the electronic dupe sheet or a second radio. It takes a bit of 
> talent to utilize these. should we do away with in-log dupe checking also? We 
> could all do our own SCP if we had the time and energy but yet could not put 
> together expected spotted calls.
> If we are going to bark up this tree we need to do away with SCP totally 
> unless we go to a cloud based database accessed via the chosen category,. ie 
> you choose SO and you do not have access to the SCP (on the cloud)
> Just some thoughts.
> Randy N1KWF
> 
> 
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 4:14 PM, Stu Phillips 
> <stu@k6tu.net<mailto:stu@k6tu.net><mailto:stu@k6tu.net<mailto:stu@k6tu.net>>> 
> wrote:
> 
> Posting emails likely to cause a proverbial s-storm is not my intent and 
> certainly not my standard MO. but my role as the maintainer of 
> SuperCheckPartial as well as a regular user of it in contests leave me 
> personally in no doubt…
> 
> Using Super Check Partial makes you assisted category in a contest.
> 
> Before you reach for the reply key to rip me a new one, let me start with a 
> couple of email snippets from a world class contester (who I respect greatly 
> BTW) reinforcing why I need to release SuperCheckPartial before this coming 
> weekend’s CQ WW contest.
> 
> "It seems to me releasing the next SCP file a few days BEFORE CQWW CW would 
> make good sense and help many operators achieve a clearer log.”
> 
> And…
> 
> "I hope you will reconsider since log accuracy is such an important component 
> in the success or failure for everyone in this event.”
> 
> Emphasis added by me to make the point although no reconsideration was 
> required…  I do listen to feedback FWIW.
> 
> I’m sure like me you’ve had experience of using SCP to help pull a call sign 
> out of a pile up/QRM/QSB because it gives you a clue for the possible things 
> to listen for – of course, this can be a double edged sword as it can 
> convince you HEARD what you WANTED and so make a bad QLF.
> 
> How much more time do you spend verifying a call sign when it does NOT appear 
> in SCP versus when it does?  I know that I am doubly vigilant for a call sign 
> bust both on CW and Phone when the call is NOT shown in the SCP window in my 
> logger.  This improves my accuracy and my rate as I’m less likely to double 
> down on call sign verification.
> 
> In the end adherence to the letter and spirit of contest rules comes down to 
> individuals and their own decisions.  When it comes to the spirit of the 
> rules – not what’s written but what one personally thinks is right, that’s a 
> freedom of choice that I completely endorse and respect
> 
> For me going forward, I will submit my entries in the assisted category 
> whenever I use Super Check Partial – its clear that it helps with accuracy 
> and likely rate.  Just like using cluster spots or pre-fill files (another 
> set of thorn bushes I’m not going to touch).
> 
> Respectfully presented & 73
> 
> Stu K6TU
> 
> PS:  There will be a note going out shortly revising the SCP release schedule 
> to accommodate the feedback I’ve received (and folks difficulty in planning 
> ahead ;-).
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com<mailto:CQ-Contest@contesting.com><mailto:CQ-Contest@contesting.com<mailto:CQ-Contest@contesting.com>>
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Randy Lake N1KWF
> 73 Gunn Rd.
> Keene,NH
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com<mailto: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
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>