Stu
I think you are confused.
That which constitutes "Assisted" is defined in contest rules not in the
imagination or conscience of the individual participant.
Adding further individual constraints upon operation not called for within
the rules is nothing more than a self inflicted handicap for which no
concession is made.
Outside the context defined within the rules, who could reasonably argue
they are not assisted by their computer, their logging software, el-bug,
noise cancelling headphones, electrically rotated yagis etc. I could go on
and the list would be just about endless. If use of anything which assists
us placed us in the Assisted category we would not need an Unassisted
category.
The rules for CQWW do not define use of SCP as "Assistance" but should you
feel strongly enough you could lobby the organisers to deem it to be so
within the rules. They will doubtless give the matter due consideration
then apply their sage judgement accordingly but not in time for next
weekend's event.
For now use of SCP does not place anyone in the "Assisted" category.
Have a great contest.
73 Bob, 5B4AGN
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 21:14:39 +0000
> From: Stu Phillips <stu@k6tu.net>
> To: "CQ-Contest@contesting.com" <CQ-Contest@contesting.com>
> Subject: [CQ-Contest] Why SuperCheckPartial makes you assisted
> Message-ID: <D278C1DC.888B%stu@k6tu.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
>
>
> 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
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|