[CQ-Contest] Assistance & Entry Status

[Hank Greeb]

Julius:

I say that you are entitled to your opinion, I trust you'll grant me mine.

Wasn't there an article in QST  a few years back (Maybe in an April 
issue, but I don't remember), where a computer controlled station won a 
contest?  If memory serves, the owner of that station entered it as 
"zero operator" category, since that owner didn't need to intervene 
except to push the "start" button.  The programming did the rest.....

73 de n8xx Hg

J F wrote:
> I think we should have separate categories for manned and unmanned stations.
>
> Seems like having a person in front of the rig is a distinct disadvantage ;o)
>
> 73,
> Julius
> n2wn
>
> Technology can be a convenience, such as: keyers remember when they were an issue versus bugs and straight keys?), computer logging (what percentage of
> the logs are sent in paper form, pretty small these days. Do we have different categories for DOS and Windows? Frankly, you can screw up a computer log as easy, if not easier, as a paper log), antenna switches, etc. These are just improvements in technology.
>
> I disagree about using a reflector to find spots. That's like having 8000 other folks looking for needed multipliers and letting me know exactly where to find them. This is worth more than adding an operator. Sorry, that's assisted in my mind.
>
> SO2R, another story altogether, unless assisted by a spotting network. I think you have to have a lot on the ball to make this effective as a single op. I know I can't compete against someone who is good at this with a single radio.
>
> As to building your own, some contests already have had this (Stew Perry last year and some QRP contests).  Check out the latest QEX for a rather impressive homebrew transceiver.
>
> We'll NEVER have a category for all the possibilities unless the number warrant it. 
> --- Hank Greeb <n8xx at arrl.org> wrote:
>
>   
>> I personally think that the distinction of Single Operator and Assisted is an anachronism of the 20th century, if not the 19th century.   Why don't we have separate categories for folks who operate SO2R, or those who use computers for logging, and sending CW and Phone content?  They are getting assistance from technology - hardly anyone would have thought to operate SO2R in the 50's when I got my license, and computer logging, sending, tracking of antennae, etc., are no different that using a spotting network.
>>
>> We should have categories for
>>
>> Operators who build their own equipment from scratch.  This would include all the antenna hardware, including, perhaps, winding their own rotor motors, and fabricating their own towers, if needed.
>>
>> Operators who use superhet receivers - after all, superhets weren't in use when contesting first started.
>>
>> I could go on and on.  But, my question is "why do we disallow some forms of technological advances in contesting, but allow many, many, many others?"  Or, do we equate the help from a "person" to the help one gets from a stupid computer interfaced to the internet?
>>
>> 73 de n8xx Hg