I have to wholeheartedly agree with the comments made by Paul, EI5DI.
If "indistinguishable" and "unenforceable" are the criteria for
combining single-op and single-op assisted, then lets get rid of other
entry categories that are indistinguishable and unenforceable.
I am not anti single-op assisted; I have operated in this category on
occasion. But I also operate single-op unassisted - and I want to have
the choice to compete in the category that I choose against others
operating in similar fashion. Take away my choice and I will not
participate.
I fail to understand why certain people (including SOME whose opinions I
respect) seem to think the interests of the assisted single-op are more
important than the unassisted single-op. The assisted category was
created to meet the wishes of certain participants. The unassisted
category should be maintained to meet the wishes of those participants.
Dave, K8CC
On 3/9/2017 7:12 PM, Paul O'Kane wrote:
On 09/03/2017 21:42, Barry wrote:
That's why other contests should follow the (now old) lead of DARC
and the WAE. Combine the two SO categories. They're pretty much
indistinguishable and unenforceable now.
And that's why we should also combine the QRP, LP and HP
categories, and combine the SO and MO categories, and do
away with physical boundaries for stations, because they
are all pretty much indistinguishable and unenforceable.
Or maybe not?
The existing differences between SO and SOA may not matter
to W2UP, but they matter to me when, as a single-op, I do
not use real-time spotting assistance from other operators,
or from remote receivers (RBN) or from local multi-channel
CW decoders.
73,
Paul EI5DI
Barry W2UP
On 3/9/2017 12:06, Steve London wrote:
I agree with Ed - it was a terrible decision to allow panadapters
and waterfalls in the unassisted category. It was obvious to me that
it wouldn't take long for bandmaps to be merged with these displays,
making unassisted and assisted indistinguishable to the
adjudicators, even with a recording. The law of unintended
consequences.
73,
Steve, N2IC
On 03/09/2017 11:29 AM, Jim Brown wrote:
Hi Ed,
How did you feel when you bought your first memory keyer that could be
programmed for serial numbers? Mine was an AEA, sometime in the
'60s, I
think. Do you use programmable memories and dupe-checking with logging
software? Or are you still sending everything with a paddle, logging
with pencil and paper, and using a paper dupe sheet like we did in the
'50s?
73, Jim K9YC
On Thu,3/9/2017 9:49 AM, Ed Sawyer wrote:
This is why panadapters and waterfalls should never have been allowed
in the
unassisted category. And why I have never used them.
_______________________________________________
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
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________
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
|