I have to admit that HF contesting has never been my cup of tea. I'm just not
interested in trying to maintain X Q's / minute run rates for hours at a time
in crowded band conditions. I used to be heavily into and nationally
competitive in V/UHF contesting until the ARRL changed the rules about a year
to allow all sorts of Internet spotting assistance up to and including using
QSO chat / scheduling pages. Not just allowed as a category, but applied to all
categories, so now there's no way to participate by those who don't use, or be
not adversely affected by the use of those spotting network technologies. And
even if there was still an "unassisted" category, that well has been poisoned
by the "free for all" assistance now allowed there. The participant population
density on those bands is too low to just "absorb" the two operating styles.
Variations of that Internet assistance is now allowed in virtually all VHF and
up contests. Needless to say that rule change has completely ruined VHF
contesting for me.
There's clearly a similar sentiment for not eliminating the distinction between
assisted and non assisted in the HF world. But the rule writing to maintain
that distinction clearly stifles technology adoption. Because there are people
who do want maximize the technology used in the shack to extract as much from
all of the RF coming down the feedlines as possible, but also want no part of
that technology or info gained from it being “connected” to or from others
during the contest over the Internet etc. in any shape or form.
More food for thought: The rules regarding assistance have always been focused
on whether *operator* is assisted or not. It would seem that the focus should
be on whether the *station* is assisted or not. Defining whether the station is
assisted or not is much simpler than for the operator. Because station
assistance would be any band condition or Q making info getting to the operator
via means other than from the in-competition antennas, feedlines and the RF
processing gear connected to them. The previously mentioned terms "connected"
vs. "not connected" do very much apply here.
I can't say that Cabrillo has had any negative impact on any of the contesting
that I have done. But then I never really done much HF contesting where that
may indeed be a factor
--------------------------------------------
On Sat, 4/9/16, N4XM Paul D. Schrader <n4xm@iglou.com> wrote:
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Idea for re-defining categories - long
To: "Duane - N9DG" <n9dg@yahoo.com>, "Duane - N9DG via CQ-Contest"
<cq-contest@contesting.com>
Date: Saturday, April 9, 2016, 10:54 AM
Duane,
You have done a good job below, but you have missed maybe
the most
important point.
The electronic submission at the present-The Cabrillo
system-and it is a
system- contains no multiplier information.
THEIR multiplier info is supplied by the contest sponsor and
applied to the
contact information (the call letters) you supply-THUS IT IS
ASSISTED. And
often incorrect. AND THEY WON'T CORRECT ANYTHING.
Any score you and your computer logging program might create
is not ever
used by the sponsor.
AND THEY HAVE NO INTEREST IN CORRECTING ANY ERRORS THEY MAKE
IN SEVERAL
DIFFERENT AREAS, NOT JUST MULTIPLIER AREAS.
I was nationally competitive in ARRL DX contests (from KY)
at one time and
contested for over 50 years before Cabrillo. And there was
computer logging
and electronic submission before Cabrillo. Cabrillo
(and the sponsors)
runined my hobby and I don't contest anymore.
In case you haven't noticed contesters are second class
citizens as
compared to DXers (where everything is handled very well).
Yes, I have talked to many at ARRL and CQ and they do
nothing.
Pass this along to others.
73
Paul N4XM
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|