[CQ-Contest] Incorrect conclusions about un-assisted versus assisted

[Tree]

NS3T writes:

> My argument would be - even when you let the guys use spots
> enter the same single op category - the UN-assisted ops  would do better.
> 
> My apologies for clouding things.  Get rid of the assisted category...
> very little would change about who wins.

When I see this comment - I just have to jump up and down and make as much 
noise as I can - as it is the totally wrong conclusion to jump to.

The reason that you see typically lower un-assisted scores at the top is
simple.  The large percentage of the top operators are NOT using assistance.  

If you banish the distinction between the two - you have now put the top
operators into the position of having to adopt the technology in order to
not lose to other top operators who are adopting it.

There is just not a way that having information at your fingertips telling 
you where multipliers are hiding does not have a positive imapct on your 
score.  I know when I was at HC8N, that the times we did have packet spots
showing up - I used that information to allow me to pounce on mults without
having to lose my run frequency to troll for them myself.  

The top operators like the challenge of finding the mults on their own, and
the fact that the competition in the unassisted category is tougher proves
that point.

Tree N6TR
tree at kkn.net