[CQ-Contest] Eliminate SO Unassisted?
btippett at alum.mit.edu
Fri Jun 13 13:58:23 EDT 2008
>We can accept a class for packet. Why is it so hard to
accept it if Skimmer is deemed to be equivalent to packet?
Not only equivalent but *indistinguishable* from
Packet by log-checking software. If Skimmer is OK for
single-op unassisted, and you cannot distinguish the
operating signature from assisted, then the obvious
solution is to make one single-op class without any
restrictions. In the words of K3MD on the Skimmer
"Most likely the way this should be handled is to place users in the
assisted or MS category, depending on the contest. However, since
there is widespread abuse of the assisted category in entries sent in
as SO, the wider question would be, "should the SO (nonassisted)
category be eliminated?"
(BTW that poll is now closed, 32% for Skimmer, 58% against)
In fact there is now a new poll question by VE5ZX which
poses K3MD's question:
"WAE and RDXC recently merged assisted and non-assisted single
operator categories. Would you favour such a move for the CQWW contest? "
But surprisingly the WRTC 2010 organizers are being
pig-headed. Are they anti-technology Luddites? Don't they know that
the true test of operating skill is all these neat technology tools
and not the operators themselves?
"No way!" was the answer from WRTC 2010 organizer Igor "Harry"
Booklan RA3AUU when asked if the Skimmer would be allowed in the
World Radiosport Team Championships in Russia.
"No cluster. No skimmer. No super check partial. No other
assistance," Booklan told radio-sport.net.
This thing just keeps getting weirder and weirder...(and
funnier)! As I said to K3MD, "
I love your sports medicine logic. Since so many athletes are using
steroids, let's just declare steroids legal." ;-)
73, Bill W4ZV
More information about the CQ-Contest