[CQ-Contest] SO1R vs. SO2R

[George Fremin III]

On Sun, Jul 30, 2006 at 08:36:43AM -0600, VE5ZX wrote:

> It appears that for some strange reason SO2R ops are afraid to face-off 
> against one another. It seems they would rather remain anonymous in a crowd 
> of SO1R ops. Very strange!
> 

Most of what I have seen has been people saying they are against 
a new category. Over the history of the CQ-Contest list you will
find similar calls for new categories by someone and there will
always be those opposed.  I can say that I am never very thrilled about
adding categories to contests because at some point it just gets 
silly.  Single band 160 qrp assisted comes to mind but I am straying.
 
> This argument can be settled once and for all. All that is need is 
> information. Simply report which stations are running SO2R even by putting 
> an asterisk beside the call of ops using SO2R. Even better - the sponsors 
> only need to report it in the on-line scores. Without this information this 
> debate may continue on forever simply as a war of words without facts to 
> backup either sides point of view.

The idea of information I can agree with - some contests already 
do this - the NCJ CW Sprint.

http://www.ncjweb.com/cwsprint022006.pdf

I think it is asking a bit much for entire station setups with
complete lists of antennas and such to be apart of the results for a
contest but maybe we are moving towards results that can be filtered
and sorted in any way you desire.  The ARRL online scores allow for
some sorting like this already.  Maybe at some point we will have 
complete list of all station hardware use a contest.


In a way some of our 3830 score postings already include this sort of information.
I try to make my 3830 postings include all of my antenna and station 
setup information so that I will know what I was using in a given contest 
in the past.  ie. I want to know a year or more from now if I had the 
new 15 meter yagis up in that contest or not.


> 
> BUT wait a minute! In order to report SO1R vs SO2R would mean a change to 
> the Cabrillo 2.0 format or even better a complete change to XML - an IT 
> industry standard.

Adding a header line is not much of a change and besides I think you could
add a header line now without breaking anything.


-- 
George Fremin III - K5TR
geoiii at kkn.net
http://www.kkn.net/~k5tr