[CQ-Contest] Just say no

[Jim White, K4OJ]

HRLE 9A6XX writes:

"Quttin' a contest for not being your way?! Are you really a contester?!"


I think you are missing the point...

In a free world we chose our form of entertainment from a variety of 
choices - as contesters we have a lots to pick from.

If a sponsor creates a set of rules which an individual feels is not 
positive for contesting he can chose to show his feelings by NOT 
participating in their contest.

I am also one of the "haven't operated WAE since" crowd... which is a 
damned shame as I have wondered how the computer software handles the 
QTC's - my last WAE was done on paper logs - prior to my becoming fluent 
in CT.  The QTC is a great part of the contest which used to make it one 
I looked forward to - it is fun finding a good op who can handle QRQ QTC 
batches of ten!  BUT, I feel the single operator is NOT to have any 
operating assistance period and a contest that takes that person and 
places him head to head with another that has hundreds of sets of gray 
cells other than his own adding to his log is just plain wrong.

This debate has been rehashed over and over on this reflector - the 
latest regurgitation thanks to the work of K1TTT and his attempts to 
help unmask cheaters who spot themselves under another identity.

A contester takes on other contesters in the hopes that he is engaging 
in a fair battle - a level playing field if you will.  There are many 
hams like myself who while we love working Europeans also feel strongly 
that packet has absolutely NO PLACE in single operator competition.

Choosing not to enter a contest is NOT quitting it is abstaining from 
competing - when it comes to WAE, I just say no.

FWIW my station is frequently used in multi-operator entries and as such 
we do use packet spotting - the difference here is that it is 
multi-operator which I truly feel any packet assisted endeavor has to be 
called.

73,

Jim, K4OJ