[CQ-Contest] Re: [dx-list] Single op definition change. (Acting rather than speaking)

[Peter Bowyer]

Renegade wrote :-

>Martín Monsalvo LW9EUJ wrote:
>
> Hi:
>> I'm in favor of changing the single op definition to allow the use of
>> packet, and other means of dx alert, such as on the air assist by
friends,
>> etc.
>
>WHY?
>1.  The big contestors stay on one frequency - no benefit.
>2.  The ones that scan the bands use packet and dx alerts anyway.
>3.  So - no need for change!

Have you ever operated WW or WPX from somewhere slightly rare? I've now done
3 big ones from 9M6AAC, and I can tell you that without doubt, the 'big
contestors' who you perceive as always staying on one frequency are
extremely adept at QSYing to snag an available mult when it pops up on the
DX Cluster.

Can't be coincidence that during a 15m run to Stateside in WW SSB I was
called by W3LPL and KC1XX within 2 QSOs...

Have a read of the description of the CN8WW M/M technique generously posted
by DL6FBL here only yesterday - see how much effort they put into providing
a second rig / op for each band, part of whos job is to investigate incoming
wanted mult spots from the cluster network and only bother the 'run' op if
the mult is workable.

Good Single-op Assisted stations do the same in minature, relying on their
logging software to suck in DX Cluster spots and alert them about new mults
on their run band, or on other bands. Which is a completely different
technique to the 'should I run or should I S&P?' scenario which the
Unassisted stations use.

Both are valid techniques, and the two separate sections should continue to
recognise this.

Peter G4MJS / 9M6BAA



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