[CQ-Contest] Better now or 20 years ago ?

[Maurizio Panicara]

Single op, multi op, cheating, rules stretching, packet, indirect helps, and
so on......

I was reading all the messages trying to restrain and not to write what I
think, but today is a very ugly foggy afternoon and again, the "politically
correct or claims for the nice good old days" with contests, that
fundamentally are a sort war where all the available weapons are (and were)
always used, crashes too much with objective memories.

When digital modes were far not yet in use, some claimed SO (and MS) had
groups of dedicated friend helpers that searched mults and passed infos when
not directly worked them. Often the mults worked were integrated by other
qsos and then all the works merged in a single log.
Other single ops didn't even need such kind of help because their callbook
or even their fantasy did help them to log huge amounts of fake or
incompleted qsos (guessing) knowing that paper logs weren't, or couldn't be
checked properly.
At the end of eighties and beginning of nineties, some form of
packetcluster, and real packetcluster networks were already existing in
north America, but noone took in considerations the "gentle" complaints
coming from the "old continent", without such developed media available.
Computer logging and electronic checks, toghether strong penalties for fake
or broken qsos have been the only real improvement in cleaning bad customs
we have seen along the recent years in contesting activity.
Finally, infact, a number of  "stone faced" jokers and cheaters (single and
mults) claiming for incredible rates on impossible bands and toward
uncheckable areas (typically ex USSR) disappeared from high positions or
even stopped
contesting.
When someone ask to eliminate penalty for busted qsos, the contest community
should suspect about the underline will to reintroduce the bad custom to log
each qso, completed or not, true or fake, with the aim that not all the
"mistakes" will be caught and what's caught, anyway, doesn't have an impact
on the final score.
Each category with limitations is inherently prone to encourage unfair
operations and the best possible cure would be to have only one category
instead of many, and to drop out of date distinctions.
The first is not always applicable in practice not to "expell" out of the
competition and the fun all the people who has limited stations or power,
but effectively doesn't cure and prevent if a claimed low power is using
high, or if a claimed "tribander single wire" uses instead monobanders and
directional array, even on low bands.
The second, packetcluster, as considered the determinant support to decide
if an operation is "assisted" or not is out of the times and "consistently
unconsistent".
Someone wrote that a good hunter doesn't need a dog, but following the same
thread to a limit, one could also claim that a good hunter doesn't need a
rifle and should go with arc and arrows or eventually go trowing stones not
to benefit
what others invented. (everithing apply with fishing too)
Reality says that we use hi tech bought equipment and antennas, double VFOs,
dual watch, SSB and not AM, DSP , F12 with CT etc etc. and finally, most of
us benefit of technologies someone else did for us and without them our
score would be much less than it is.
As well as the above, packetcluster and internet are existing and represent
an unpersonalized evolution of the activity.
If this were not enough, facts (results) showed repeatedly that assisted ops
are unable to log more mults than unassisted and the complaints are more
because of mere principle than good in merit.
All considered, it's inherently more unfair, less difficult and quicker to
get a 5Bands DXCC now with packetcluster aid, than it was twenty or thirty
years ago without, but I haven't seen DX'ers complaining and having (or
requiring) a separate DXCC award for packet users.

In order to eliminate at least one of the "forever doubts", contesters
should finally press organizers to adopt the same line with no distinction
for with and without packetcluster.

73,
Mauri I4JMY


















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