I always wondered that. My guess is that the competitors are accustomed to
their particular radios and therefore throwing something completely unknown
to them would be to their detriment while those who use the model similar
to the competition radio daily would have an advantage, so it's not even
really leveling the playing field...
Or it could just be a case of not wanting to spend money on radios. (A
radio mfg could step up and sponsor, but that's still a lot of radios).
Ria
N2RJ
On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 1:51 PM, Joe <nss@mwt.net> wrote:
> Speaking of WRTC,
>
> Why don't we truly level it off totally.
> We already got Sites ( as close as possible ) and Identical antenna
> systems.
> Why not take the last step? The stuff on the Desk.
> Make them all the same also.
>
> Why Not?
>
> Joe WB9SBD
> Sig
> The Original Rolling Ball Clock
> Idle Tyme
> Idle-Tyme.com
> http://www.idle-tyme.com
> On 3/10/2017 11:56 AM, Ria Jairam wrote:
>
>> I think that this is a bit of a stretch, by the same token we should ban
>> second radios from "true" single op because a second radio looking for
>> mults is almost like having a second operator.
>>
>> Let's all step back for a moment and not try to box everything that can
>> give someone an edge as assistance to the level of the assisted category
>> with the cluster. Inherently, someone somewhere will find an advantage
>> unfair. An op in Kansas can never score as well as someone in New England.
>> Or even an op on a hilltop nearly always scores better than someone in the
>> valley. An op with a K3 will score better than someone with a FT-101 and
>> someone with 500w cannot break as many pileups as someone with 1500. And
>> so
>> on.
>>
>> "True fairness" is for WRTC, where everything is leveled. Even so,
>> contestants can choose some things which are advantageous to them such as
>> logging software and transceiver. But for regular contesting, everyone
>> will
>> have advantages and disadvantages. That's just the nature of the game.
>>
>> I think we started to go over this cliff of "non-cluster assistance" with
>> the skimmer debate and subsequent rule but now it is going a bit too far.
>> Ham radio used to be about the advancement of the radio art, both in
>> technical and operational aspects. Some of these proposals in contesting
>> to
>> cripple capability in the name of "fairness" truly make me wonder if that
>> is even an objective in the hobby anymore.
>>
>> Ria
>> N2RJ
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
|