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

[Leigh S. Jones, KR6X]

When I read the thread title "Get Rid of the Assisted Category" I get a very 
rosy feeling.  But then, the meaning of that phrase has a different meaning 
to me than it might to the members of the "Assisted Category" who wish to be 
reclassified as single operator entrants.  To me, the meaning of "Get Rid of 
the Assisted Category" is "Reclassify the Assisted Category as 
Multioperator", as the assisted category exists only as an exception to 
allow those using spotting networks to avoid being classified as 
multioperator.

We have to assume that spotting networks provide an opportunity for a score 
increase for their users, even if someone can drag up incontrovertable 
evidence that the average single operator entrants (at any level of 
achievement) who switched to the assisted category suffered a drop in their 
scores.  The best competitors in the Assisted Category must be using it to 
their advantage, or others in the category would beat them.

The reality is obvious: those who regularly or exclusively enter in the 
Assisted Category would like to have their scores compared to the single 
operator entrants who do not, because they believe they will fare well in 
that comparison.  They believe that spotting networks give them an 
advantage, and they are probably correct.  Reading past contest results 
leads them to believe that they would fare well if they were in a combined 
Assisted/Single Operator category.  What they overlook is that the highly 
successful operators in the single operator category, if forced to directly 
compete against those using spotting networks, would undoubtedly begin to 
use spotting networks.

I concur with Tree that the most successful operators would prefer not to be 
compelled to use spotting networks in order to compete.  I would like to 
hazard a guess, and suggest that those operators who presently excel without 
using spotting networks would probably surprise the present-day Assisted 
Category operators both in how quickly and how effectively they adapt to the 
new reality.  Because highly competitive contesting is enabled by operating 
skills, I'd imagine that those who have already demonstrated superior 
operating skills without spotting networks would probably make superior use 
of spotting networks -- if forced to do so to compete.

The result of improperly combining the Assisted Category into single 
operator category would therefore result in dramatic disappointment for 
those present practitioners of the Assisted Category.  Let's face it, 
assisted operators, the last thing you want to do is compete against scores 
that are 20% higher than the present day single operator class.  I hope 
you're thinking clearly enough to realize that.

But, if you are in the Single Operator category, and simply wish that the 
Assisted Category would again be combined into the Multioperator Category, 
where, of course, it truly belongs, then it makes sense that you'd continue 
to post messages under the thread "Get Rid of the Assisted Category".

KR6X

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tree" <tree at kkn.net>
To: <cq-contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 2:45 PM
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Incorrect conclusions about un-assisted versus 
assisted


>
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>