[CCF] Fwd: Assisted vs non-Assisted
Jari Ojala
jari.ojala at kotinet.com
Tue Apr 5 09:33:29 EDT 2016
Ei muuta kuin yhdeksi luokaksi!
Kylläkin kisa menee tiukemmaksi,
Jari 8LQ
-----Alkuperäinen viesti-----
Lähettäjä: CCF [mailto:ccf-bounces at contesting.com] Puolesta Jukka Klemola
Lähetetty: 5. huhtikuuta 2016 16:14
Vastaanottaja: ccf
Aihe: Re: [CCF] Fwd: Assisted vs non-Assisted
Se alkaa olemaan julkista, että assisted kategoriasta tosiaan keskustellaan CQ WW sisällä.
Arvelin että tämä lienee uutinen monelle.
73,
Jukka OH6LI
2016-04-05 16:10 GMT+03:00 Kim Östman <kim.ostman at abo.fi>:
> Moi,
>
> Saisiko tarkennusta: mikä alkaa olla julkista?
>
> Randyn lausahdus "It is only CQ, ARRL ..." on hieman erikoinen. Kyse
> on sentään "vain" maailman suurimmista ja merkittävimmistä kisoista :)
>
> 73
> Kim
>
>
> Lainaus Jukka Klemola <jpklemola at gmail.com>:
>
> Nyt tämä alkaa olemaan julkista ..
>> Huomatkaa että SAC esitetään maailman foorumilla.
>>
>> 73,
>> Jukka OH6LI
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: Randy Thompson K5ZD
>> ...
>>
>> There is another option... Rather than continue to get twisted in
>> defining the separation, we could merge SO and SOA into one and
>> remove all confusion.
>> There could be an overlay category for the guys who want to compare
>> themselves to other "classic" ops.
>>
>> It seems only CQ, ARRL, and SAC maintain the assisted concept. The
>> rest of the world has moved on.
>>
>> Randy, K5ZD
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On
>>> Behalf Of Paul O'Kane
>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2016 12:26 PM
>>> To: cq-contest at contesting.com
>>> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] cqcontest.net
>>>
>>> On 05/04/2016 11:54, Pete Smith N4ZR wrote:
>>>
>>> > Sorry, Ron, but I totally disagree. If it doesn't *assist*
>>> > someone to watch a scoreboard without band breakdown information
>>> > (and it doesn't), then it is not *assistance*.
>>>
>>> We're going round in circles here with everyone interpreting
>>> "assist", "assistance" and "Assisted"
>>> as they, personally, think it should be defined.
>>>
>>> All relevant technology assists.
>>>
>>> The main difference between the "Assisted" and "Unassisted"
>>> categories has always been whether you connect to external networks
>>> to improve your score or gain a competitive advantage.
>>>
>>> That's why, IMHO, the categories should change to Connected and
>>> Unconnected. That would appear to remove most uncertainty and ambiguity.
>>>
>>> * You use the cluster - you're Connected.
>>> * You use the RBN - you're Connected.
>>> * You use real-time scoreboards, or any other
>>> networked technology, to influence or
>>> modify your strategy - you're Connected.
>>>
>>> It's really simple - you're either Connected or Unconnected.
>>>
>>> I know and accept that local decoders and skimmer- like technology
>>> would continue to be "Connected".
>>> That's why I referred to "the main difference"
>>> above.
>>>
>>> 73,
>>> Paul EI5DI
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> >
>>> > 73, Pete N4ZR
>>> > Download the new N1MM Logger+ at
>>> > <http://N1MM.hamdocs.com>. Check
>>> > out the Reverse Beacon Network at
>>> > <http://reversebeacon.net>, now
>>> > spotting RTTY activity worldwide.
>>> > For spots, please use your favorite "retail" DX cluster.
>>> >
>>> > On 4/5/2016 12:52 AM, Fco. Luis Delgadillo wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Enviado desde mi Huawei de Telcel Ron A couple of questions:
>>> >>
>>> >> Have you tried yourself the live scoreboard.
>>> >>
>>> >> The Best way to finding out, is perhaps, if you try the
>>> >> scoreboard and then have an informed opinion - to discern facts
>>> >> from gut
>>> feelings?
>>> >>
>>> >> -------- Mensaje original --------
>>> >> Asunto: Re: [CQ-Contest] cqcontest.net
>>> >> De: Ron Notarius W3WN
>>> >> Para: 'Pete Smith N4ZR' ,'CQ Contest'
>>> >> CC:
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> But here's the thing Pete.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> When you receive that information. how did you get it? Where did
>>> >> it come
>>> >> from? You said yourself. "You must decide to post your score"
>>> >> and what
>>> >> other information is to be posted for use by other operators.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> So ultimately, the answer is. it came from other operators who are
>>> >> posting
>>> >> that information. How is that not assisted?
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Look, I don't have a problem with the scoreboard or similar
>>> >> exchanges of
>>> >> information. I'm not saying that the software that provides the
>>> >> capability
>>> >> should be disabled.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Just please don't tell me that it's not "assisted" and using it
>>> >> doesn't put
>>> >> you into an Assisted or equivalent operating category. It is. (Or
>>> >> to put
>>> >> it in the vernacular, don't spill a drink on my slacks and then
>>> >> tell me it's
>>> >> raining.)
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Sometimes I operate Single Op/Assisted. Sometimes I don't. The
>>> >> reasons why
>>> >> vary depending on the event in question and how I am choosing to
>>> >> approach
>>> >> it. I'm comfortable with either category these days. I just don't
>>> >> pretend
>>> >> one is the other. And I don't ask that the line between them be
>>> >> blurred.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Either you are assisted. or you aren't. It is that simple.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> 73, ron w3wn
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> _____
>>> >>
>>> >> From: Pete Smith N4ZR [mailto:n4zr at contesting.com]
>>> >> Sent: Monday, April 04, 2016 4:01 PM
>>> >> To: Ron Notarius W3WN; CQ Contest
>>> >> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] cqcontest.net
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Ron, at least in the case of cqcontest.net and users of MM+, this
>>> >> isn't
>>> >> true. You must decideB to post your score, and you can decide
>>> >> (in
>>> >> MM+)
>>> >> whether or not to include a band breakdown.B Without band
>>> >> information,
>>> >> access to this resource is nothing but fun, and should not be
>>> >> considered
>>> >> assistance.B Perhaps the sponsors could voluntarily disable
>>> >> the
>>> band
>>> >> breakdown display during contest weekends, and the whole issue
>>> >> would go
>>> >> away.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> 73, Pete N4ZR
>>> >> Download the new N1MM Logger+ at
>>> >> . Check
>>> >> out the Reverse Beacon Network at
>>> >> , now
>>> >> spotting RTTY activity worldwide.
>>> >> For spots, please use your favorite
>>> >> "retail" DX cluster.
>>> >>
>>> >> On 4/4/2016 8:16 AM, Ron Notarius W3WN wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> ...The scoreboard is directly based on spotting information.
>>> >> Therefore,
>>> >> information derived from it is (IMHO) assistance for the purposes
>>> >> of most
>>> >> contests that recognize this category.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> ---
>>> >> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus
>>> software.
>>> >> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>> >> CQ-Contest mailing list
>>> >> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
>>> >> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > CQ-Contest mailing list
>>> > CQ-Contest at contesting.com
>>> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>>> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>> _______________________________________________
>> CCF mailing list
>> CCF at contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/ccf
>>
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CCF mailing list
> CCF at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/ccf
>
_______________________________________________
CCF mailing list
CCF at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/ccf
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7497 / Virus Database: 4545/11955 - Release Date: 04/03/16
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7497 / Virus Database: 4545/11955 - Release Date: 04/03/16
More information about the CCF
mailing list