[CQ-Contest] The Skimmer Rule Challenge
vk7gn at bigpond.com
Thu Jun 12 01:39:26 EDT 2008
From: cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com
[mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Robert Chudek -
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 5:22 AM
To: Ron Notarius W3WN; 'cq-contesting cq-contest'
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] The Skimmer Rule Challenge
Ron is correct. If the contesting community cannot agree what "Assisted"
means, it's fruitless to try to fabricate contest rules. (Sorry Randy)
term needs to be defined first, then the rest will fall into place. And
don't think the contesting community can define it for the contest
(Sorry again Randy). The definition/clarification needs to come from the
73 de Bob - KØRC in MN
Which is why I think we need to strategically move past the assisted/
Assitance is an artifact of history it was an attempt to cope with
packet networks while not changing rules too much and losing
comparability of past records. To persist with using the word as a major
rules segmentation device is no longer usefull or sensible.
That is why I suggested that we have a single op open section - One
op/one signal/one location but as many inputs and as much technology as
that one person can deal with.
Then define another section (Classic?) based on a list of permitted
technologies to restrict it to "a boy and his radio" or whatever we
choose as an appropriate classification.
If we keep this assisted designation it will cause even more problems
with technologies on the horizon. We need a single op open!
More information about the CQ-Contest