[CQ-Contest] Bad operating practices - a real-life example

[Guy Olinger, K2AV]

Hmm. No help at all allowed, pristine single op does everything. Have
to have a level playing field.

Rules say that the op is not allowed to have any advantages, eg
absolute even playing field? Musta missed something, but then I have
same trouble with the some-assembly-required instructions for

How about having dinner brought to the shack during the contest? Guess
no spouses in SO. How about that multi-operator tower (Have any help
putting it up? Wouldn't be so loud if didn't have the construction
help) No cranes either, that's assisted. Guess only towers put up by
the operator without assistance of any kind can be certified as single
operator towers. If I don't have a single operator tower I can't ever
operate single operator. Can't single op away from home, cause using
someone else's tower and dwelling, etc, and that's assistance. For
that matter no borrowing of rigs and amps, either.

How about all that shared intelligence gathered from club meetings?
Unfair advantage to single ops who live out in the boonies and don't
get to share all that insight from the local top ops. Single ops
should be certified that no club meetings have been attended in the
last three years. For that matter remove single op from club scores
altogether, too many advantages to be single op. Don't believe it,
just look at all those ghastly high scores in FRC, PVRC, NCCC,
etc. All single ops must be certified club-free.

What about all those smart operators? Can't have a level playing field
with smart ops like Will, AA4NC and the like in the same category. I
should catch a break because my IQ is less than his. Need an inverse
IQ multiplier. Can't be single op unless your IQ is certified and
registered for the inverse IQ multiplier.

For that matter, using logging programs programmed by others is a form
of assistance. Single ops not allowed to use Writelog, NA, CT, TR,
etc. Only logging programs coded by the op are allowed, and they have
to use BASIC. And the computer has to have been assembled by the op
from a pile of parts.

And then, since only seven ops qualified for pure SO, we have to have
lots of subclasses for that grubby mass of ops who are only partially
TRUE single OP. Lessee, I would be

SOMOTWSWCIQRCLPCCPUDWDFTPUCTABHP

That's Single OP, Multiop tower, with spouse, with club, IQ
registered, Commercial Logging Program, Commercial CPU, ah, hmm, what
were those last letters again... Had this figured out just a minute
ago. Where'd the rules book get to this time? Dang dog. ...All band,
High Power.

      ------------

After all that, just making single op "only one guy does the contest"
does seem refreshingly simple. Just assume all single ops get
assistance of some kind.

Seriously, how much assistance is allowed is a rules CHOICE and
JUDGEMENT CALL by the contest sponsors, not some moral imperative. It
has all the moral force of the infield fly rule in baseball. Keepers
of the rules think the game is better if the runner is out even if the
fielder drops the ball.

Sorry, folks, there is no single op level playing field holy
grail. Just the sponsor's rules and how they choose to enforce
them. The WRTC is as close as any contest will ever get to level
playing field, and that is supremely difficult to administer, kudos to
those who manage to bring it off. Everything else is a degree of
someone having an advantage that some others don't.

Sponsor doesn't think packet belongs in their SO category, they stick
it in the rules. Then packet ain't allowed in SO, case closed. Don't
like the rules, then vote by not operating. (Oh, you have too much fun
to vote that way? Hmmm...)

73 y'all, Guy.

On Thu, 20 Jul 2000 10:49:20 -0700, you wrote:

>
>On MANY occasions I have heard very well known SOABHP "Unassisted"
>stations use this "holding the frequency" strategy to repeatedly

... snip ...

>I will spare them them any public embarassment by not mentioning
>callsigns.  They know who they are.  Hopefully they will reflect on this
>inappropriate practice and stop using it or instead claim a Multi
>category rather than SO Unassisted. 
>
>73
>
>Bob KQ2M

73, Guy
k2av at contesting.com
Apex, NC, USA


--
CQ-Contest on WWW:        http://lists.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests:  cq-contest-REQUEST at contesting.com