[CQ-Contest] Assisted vs Unassisted

[CYBERGURUES]

As things get worse contest after contest, I hope some of the people who
replied so furiously to my postings about eliminating the assisted class,
get the point now.
Why to create separations that we cannot control at all?
My modest suggestion, is to eliminate the use of packet to separate single
ops from single ops assisted.
Everybody should be allowed to use this tool. Thus, nobody would be able to
cheat.
Just to remind you. I don't use, I will not use,  I don't like, I will never
like packet!!!
But it seems to me, that contesters deserve a fair playing ground, and this
packet distinction surely does not help to make our competitions fair.
Also, my support to Scott for telling us about the TO5T.
I've heard a .wav that speaks for itself.
I really hope we all act like Scott did.
Let's help keep contesting the way it was years ago: Fair.
73
Martin, LW9EUJ



-----Mensaje original-----
De: owner-cq-contest at contesting.com
[mailto:owner-cq-contest at contesting.com]En nombre de Barry Martz
Enviado el: Miércoles, 28 de Marzo de 2001 09:51 a.m.
Para: cq-contest at contesting.com
Asunto: Re: [CQ-Contest] Assisted vs Unassisted



Just a couple quick questions:

1.  With all the spot sucking software and the spot web pages available, why
not just eliminate the ASSISTED category?
People use them and it can't be policed.

2.  What about the 200 watt radios in the low power class?  If they can run
in the low power class, does
that mean I can run my ft-990 with the amp at 200 watts also?

Lots of corner cutting on the rules that can't be policed but it IS
happening.


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


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