[CQ-Contest] Remove that Word!

Michael Coslo mjc5 at psu.edu
Thu Jun 12 13:22:24 EDT 2008

On Jun 12, 2008, at 11:22 AM, Ward Silver wrote:

>> Ron is correct. If the contesting community cannot agree what  
>> "Assisted"
>> means, it's fruitless to try to fabricate contest rules. (Sorry  
>> Randy)
>> This
>> term needs to be defined first, then the rest will fall into  
>> place. And I
>> don't think the contesting community can define it for the contest
>> sponsors
>> (Sorry again Randy). The definition/clarification needs to come  
>> from the
>> sponsors themselves.
>> 73 de Bob - K0RC in MN
> I've got a better idea - how about we get **RID** of the word  
> "assisted"
> entirely?  It is far too vague to be of any use when we are really  
> talking
> about sources and movement of information.

This is the first step to clearing up the issue, Ward.

Too often we have the word "assisted" used as almost a pejorative, as  
if it was a lower class.

> Even better - maybe the categories should be named Red, Blue, and  
> Green so
> the category name is removed from the debate completely and  
> thoroughly.

That would work. Perhaps a 1,2,3 or a,b,c class would be similar.

Say what would now be unlimited would be number 1, Single Op Low  
Unlimited would be 2, and Single Op no new technological enhancements  
would be number 3. Similar for Multi-Op stations.

Freeze class 3 in it's present technological state, and classes 1 and  
2 can use whatever technology is available.

-73 de Mike N3LI -

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list