[CQ-Contest] SO2R IS A Seperate Entry Class

[TOMK5RC at aol.com]

In a message dated 6/1/00 5:32:19 AM Pacific Daylight Time, w2gd at hotmail.com 
writes:

<< Creation of a separate SO2R entry class is IMHO long overdue >>

In which contests? What is the driving motivation?

Perhaps in DX contests additional categories make sense because there is a 
true "global" issue of variation in station configurations. I am not opposed 
to additional categories. In fact, I championed the Multi-two category in the 
ARRL DX test. 

My concern is that the motivation for SO2R being another attempt to "level 
the playing field" in domestic contests. We've debated this subject for at 
least the last 30 years and found no consensus. 

I was one of the first to have a memory keyer and happened to win SS CW in 
1975. Was that unfair? I am one of the last to embrace SO2R, should I 
petition for an "OFOR" (Old Fart, One Radio) category? Should I be penalized 
because I have realized my radio ambition to live on a 6,500' mountain top in 
NV and have an "unfair advantage" over other members of NCCC who live at sea 
level and are just another "CA" station? Look a the "assisted" categories. 
They are a great idea, but scores seldom are as high as those who are not 
assisted. It seems to me that any attempt to differentiate based on ability 
to build a competitive station will serve only to dilute the existing 
categories of entry and discourage folks from continually improving 
themselves and their hobby. 

With all of the categories presently on the books and all of the clever 
sorting techniques used in reporting the results, it appears to me that 
everyone who wants to see their call in a "box" can do so today.

Just my opinion. I could be wrong.

Tom Taormina, K5RC/K7GJ


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


>From N7RX" <n7rx at arrl.net  Thu Jun  1 15:59:02 2000
From: N7RX" <n7rx at arrl.net (N7RX)
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 07:59:02 -0700
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Field day no-coders?
References: <3.0.6.32.20000601052934.008aab60 at pop.gscyclone.com>
Message-ID: <003901bfcbd9$ed56e560$473ca3ce at shack>


We use the novice station as a means of inciting excitement among our
younger members, including the licenseless and "no-coders", in an
environment thats less intense than the main stations. (Heaven forbid any of
them should decide that CW contesting is a worthwhile avocation.)

I think that the station should be retained indefinitely by the rules as a
"freebie". The points we got off the thing last year got us over 10k, and
the rest of the club is motivated to make sure that the station gets set-up
as a result.

 As long as there's a control op present, there is no problem.

73 Neal N7RX

----- Original Message -----
From: Pete Smith <n4zr at contesting.com>
To: <cq-contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2000 10:29 PM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Field day no-coders?


>
> At 10:21 PM 5/31/00 EDT, KI9A at aol.com wrote:
> >
> >hey gang,  I have a question about field day--on the novice/tech station,
IF
> >a we use a couple of tech +'s to set up & operate the novice/tech
station,
> >using a TECH+ call,  can a NO-CODE tech operate & help set-up?
> >just wondering, we have a no-coder who wants to get his feet wet, since
the
> >HF stations are full of "hard-core guys", novice station seems like the
> >obvious place to start..
> >what do you think??
>
> >From a legal standpoint, as long as a Tech+ is present to serve as the
> control op, sure, but are your "hard-core" folks really that "hard?"  On
> our FDs, there is always plenty to do till the gun sounds, but lots of
> operating time available on the "regular" stations, and no reason a Tech
> couldn't operate one of them too, under the same control op standard.
>
> Yhe FD rule somebody cited was clearly intended to prevent operation of
the
> novice/tech station by HIGHER class ops, not to negate opportunities for
> no-code Techs to be exposed to FD.
>
> 73, Pete Smith N4ZR
> n4zr at contesting.com
>
>
>
> --
> CQ-Contest on WWW:        http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
> Administrative requests:  cq-contest-REQUEST at contesting.com
>
>


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