[CQ-Contest] Eliminate SO Unassisted?

dieven at comcast.net dieven at comcast.net
Sat Jun 14 09:13:24 EDT 2008

Doug, aren't the skills required of a modern contester just different than the skills required 20 years ago?

I can't maintain a manual dupe sheet at all well.  I never got very good at it. I also have difficulty reading my own handwriting.  I can't send at any reasonable quality all the contest calls and exchanges with a straight key.  I cannot log with one hand while keying with the other. 

But I can configure a modern station. I can write some of the software that amateur radio operators use.  I can use, with very limited success, a second radio in a contest. I would suggest that some of the things most of us can do now would baffle our predecessors.

Do I have the skills and have I trained myself as my predecessors in the skills of dupe sheet maintenance and manual CW keying?  Nope.

Could my predecessors with their skills do what I can do with my training and effort to create, learn, select, and apply these tools?  Nope.

How has this use of technology to replace laziness or training "dumbed down" contesting? It has changed it.  It has resulted in higher scores. And it has resulted in more enjoyment for me and for the people who have to copy my CW. I frankly don't think the manual dupe sheet and manual CW skills I have been to lazy to learn are very important in today's contesting world.

Whether CWSkimmer should be permited in SO is a valid thing to debate. 

But would suggest that the "technology improvements are bad for a technology-based hobby" argument does not hold water.

Dick, K6KR

-------------- Original message -------------- 
From: Doug Renwick <ve5ra at sasktel.net> 

> There appears to be a lot of people out there who do not have, nor want 
> to train for, the operating skills others possess. Their thinking is to 
> substitute technology for their laziness and/or lack of ability. It's 
> commonly called "dumbing down". Sure, take the easy way and what really 
> do you gain? 
> There is also a small group, who for their convoluted reasons, want to 
> destroy the historical concept of cw contesting. An analogy is the 
> small group who have destroyed the traditional concept of marriage. 
> Some call it progress. Progress to what end I ask? 
> Great that the WRTC 2010 team championship will not allow assistance. 
> However, what control do they have on the selection of teams qualifying 
> for the championship? 
> I consider super check partial to be a form of assistance. Another 
> method to substitute skill with technology. As some others have stated, 
> throw out the rules and anything goes, which is probably the way this 
> will all end. 
> Doug 
> -----Original Message----- 
> VE4ZT: 
> >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 
> poll page: 
> "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?" 
> http://www.contesting.com/survey/204 
> (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? 
> " 
> http://www.contesting.com/survey/ 
> 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. 
> http://www.radio-sport.net/skimmer8.htm 
> 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 
> _______________________________________________ 
> CQ-Contest mailing list 
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com 
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest 

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list