:))
After having a good laugh about Randy's so very proper answer and after
reading the comments after my posting and after drinking 4 bottles of very
good Georgian wine (saperavi) with a friend in a car an a business trip
continuation from 4L to EK this night i would like to add following
comments:
1. SO(A) vs SO scores comparison is total waste of time. OF COURCE SO(A) can
ceteris paribus achieve higher scores EASILY by having 20+% higher
multiplier count. Anyone telling different does not know what he is talking
about. Please cut the crap. And of course assistance (according to the
rules) works one-way - you either use it or not.
2. I respect Steve's (N2IC) comments a lot. At the same time it is all about
the preferences. My vote of combining the categories is purely my opinion
and a rather selfish one as you see. I think the contest organizers have to
make a decision seeing how they can please a greater number of people while
being able to do provide a proper service.
3. As pointed out, albeit it being possible to detect RBN/packet cheaters,
it takes a lot of time and I realized the amount of time I have put into
this in the last ca 3-4 years does not justify the sacrifices I have made
regarding my family and professional work. As Steve pointed out - I decided
to quit CQWW CC after seeing that the work I do is often neglected and
ignored. I can only wish strength to Randy to reform the rotten CQWW
management system but it does not mean that I wish to jump back into this
and thus I wish (selfishly) that the SO and SO(A) categories would be
combined.
I don't critize anyone for having a different opinion and fighting for SO
categories. It is all about the public opinion but don't let yourself be
fooled of the current statistics where many casual ops enter defult SO
category inspite using cluster.
73
Tonno
ES5TV
-----Original Message-----
From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of
Randy Thompson K5ZD
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 7:45 PM
To: 'Joe'; cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Non-assisted & Assisted
Just for discussion purposes, how about if I give you 5000 to 8000 logs.
Then how easy is it?
Randy, K5ZD
> -----Original Message-----
> From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf
> Of Joe
> Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 2:36 PM
> To: cq-contest@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Non-assisted & Assisted
>
> It should be easy - MM, M2, MS, SOHP, SOHP(A), SOLP, SOLP(A), QRP,
> QRP(A)
> - What the heck is so hard about that? Anyone?
>
> AGREED 100%
>
> Joe WB9SBD
> Sig
> The Original Rolling Ball Clock
> Idle Tyme
> Idle-Tyme.com
> http://www.idle-tyme.com
> On 1/28/2013 8:29 PM, Edward Sawyer wrote:
> > If contest committees are spending time to check on the use of
> > assisted in the non-assisted class, then the logical conclusion is
> > that it would give the cheater an advantage. Otherwise why bother.
> > So, it is clear that it has an effect on the outcome. And it has
> > had an effect on the outcome.in at least one recent CQWW, the HP(A)
> > category outscored the HP category. I am quite sure it wasn't the
> first time.
> >
> >
> >
> > So why is this topic so suddenly being floated by some very familiar
> > names in the contest circles? Fess up folks.
> >
> >
> >
> > Both categories are big and popular in all power categories. Why is
> > there a need to change it?
> >
> >
> >
> > I completely agree with an early part of this thread that every
> > contest should have an assisted category and to not force assisted
> > operators into the Multi-Single category just for using packet or
> > skimmer. That is as unfair as forcing single ops to compete with
> > operators with global assistance.
> >
> >
> >
> > It should be easy - MM, M2, MS, SOHP, SOHP(A), SOLP, SOLP(A), QRP,
> > QRP(A) - What the heck is so hard about that? Anyone?
> >
> >
> >
> > Ed N1UR
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
|