[CQ-Contest] FW: [SOU] => Single-op Unassisted <sort of long>

[Tod - ID]

 I forgot to send this to the reflector -- I only sent it to Tom.

Tod, K0TO

-----Original Message-----
From: Tod - ID [mailto:tod at k0to.us] 
Sent: Saturday, December 25, 2010 10:26 AM
To: 'Tom Haavisto'
Subject: [SOU] => Single-op Unassisted <sort of long>

I think this suggestion by VE3EJ deserves more discussion.  

> "Any technology that gives you the frequency and call sign of other
> stations shall not be allowed".

If there is strong feeling about what the Single Operator Unassisted [SOU]
should limit something like this definition could save a lot of email and in
person postings and discussion by people trying to understand what is IN and
what is OUT.

But this 'debate' is a philosophical one and requires some sort of consensus
that there should be a contest entry category that is aimed at pitting one
operator's skill against another operator's skill rather than one operator's
skill and technology against another operator's skill. The problem is that
there is a significant amount of technology which has been grandfathered
into the generally accepted definition of operators skill in the Single
Operator Unassisted [SOU] category. At this point we think of that
technology as "operating aids" and not as Assistance to the Operator -- at
least not to the point where we would consider the Operator to no longer be
qualified to be an entrant in the SOU entry category. 

My ideas of "operating aids' is called out below.

The use of logging computers at both ends of a QSO improves documentation
for the operators and the contest sponsors. Because of that most
participants are willing to accept that "operating aid" as "permitted".
Using computers to send CW messages or audio snippets has a history that
goes back to 1970 and has substantially improved the opportunity for
listeners to copy what is being sent. That too has been grandfathered into
the set of acceptable "operating aids". Prior to the time of computers [some
of us go back that far] dup sheet setup and use was almost a science --
especially as the calls began to include "K's", then "WA's", then "WB's" and
so on. The management of 'DUPE SHEETS' by the computer is an "operating aid"
that is really important to many of us who, while not growing "older", are
living longer. Clearly that "operating aid" is one of the accepted ones.

Other "operating aids" that seem to be "accepted" as a part of participation
in the SOU entry category are SCP and the BAND MAP. My quick read of the
proposed rule above leads me to think that it might unintentionally 'outlaw'
the use of Band Map functions now part of almost every logging program. The
BAND MAP provides the operator with frequency and call signs of other
station not yet worked <or sometimes even those already worked>. Admittedly,
the BAND MAP can be filled with calls and frequencies sent to the station by
persons other than the operator. But usually it can also accept entries
generated by the operator as they listen to stations operating on the band.

I am sure that someone could find the right words to add to the VE3EJ
definition so that operator generated [not technology at the station
generated] calls and frequencies could populate the BAND MAP and it could
remain an accepted "operating aid". 



I believe that there may be a sincere group of people who would like to see
SOU evolve to allow a higher QSO rate than might be possible for a
particular operators without additions to the currently permitted set of
"operating aids". 

If we want to preserve the classification of SOU it is worth taking the time
to develop a set of "operating aids" that are permitted and then exclude all
others until such a time as there is clear need or overwhelming interest in
adding an additional "operating aid".

Tod, K0TO