[CQ-Contest] Re: CQ Contest Digest V4 #101

[Doug Smith W9WI]

 > What would you say to a "new" guy in the hobby with this question?
 > 73 Rich  KL7RA

 >  >It has been bothering me a little bit that the rules seem to be stacked
 >  >against unassisted operation.
...(snip)...

As long as there's an assisted category, I don't know that I'd say the rules
are stacked against unassisted operation.

This year's ARRL CW operation at K3LR was the first time I've seen
significant use made of packet in a major operation.  It did make a big
difference in the mult total.  It probably would have made much less
difference at a smaller station.  (packet pileups grow fast.  If you don't
have the signal to break them, you can find yourself wasting time that would
have been better spent running)

As long as people aren't cheating, it doesn't really matter.  They are two
different categories.  A single-op is unlikely to best a multi-single, and a
multi-single won't beat a multi-multi.  Still, the single-op category
thrives.  If an unassisted can't beat an assisted, so what?

If people *are* cheating, well, they're cheating.  Some entrants may run
5KW; does that mean we should drop the "you must obey the government
regulations" rule?  (I do think it would be interesting to "seed" the
cluster with some intentionally-broken calls & see in which entries they
show up)

I wouldn't operate for any club that would pressure me to enter a category I
didn't want to compete in.  We contest for fun (at least I do).

Anyway, as long as a majority of contesters believe the use of packet in
unassisted categories is cheating, I don't see much risk of the unassisted
category going away.
-- 
Doug Smith W9WI
Pleasant View (Nashville), TN EM66
http://www.w9wi.com
Due to excessive spam, messages from uu.net are deleted unread.


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