[CQ-Contest] AN OPEN LETTER TO THE CQ CONTEST COMMITTEE
sv1dpi at otenet.gr
Mon Jan 18 12:22:09 PST 2010
I would like both categories one with cluster and one without.
I would like the "default" category would be this with the cluster.
Let's say that a category called single operator where clusters and skimmer
and a second category called Unassisted which is what we call SOAB today
(clusters and external help are not allowed).
I believe that the most of the non speaking english people use clusters and
send their log like "soab" instead of the right "soab assisted".
At least i know many people in Greece (which is a country where many people
speak English) do this.
I can imagine that this is much more in Eastern Europe, etc.
Finally all hams use clusters in every day operation. We can not ask from
them to close down every weekend when the most dx are out there or to "find"
the right category to send their log.
When i was in university and we had examinations, professors announced first
the unofficial results. We could make our objections and after that they
announced the official results. Why we can not do the same in contests. This
will stop cheating at once.
73 Kostas SV1DPI
----- Original Message -----
From: "Radio K0HB" <kzerohb at gmail.com>
To: "Jim Neiger" <n6tj at sbcglobal.net>; <cq-contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Monday, January 18, 2010 8:47 PM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] AN OPEN LETTER TO THE CQ CONTEST COMMITTEE
> If in fact those using the cluster will compete in the same category as
> "pure" single operators, then the contest is cancelled as far as I'm
> 73, de Hans, K0HB
> "Just a boy and his radio"
> From: "Jim Neiger" <n6tj at sbcglobal.net>
> Sent: Sunday, January 17, 2010 8:41 PM
> To: <cq-contest at contesting.com>
> Subject: [CQ-Contest] AN OPEN LETTER TO THE CQ CONTEST COMMITTEE
>> AN OPEN LETTER TO THE CQ CONTEST COMMITTEE, and K1EA, K1AR, K1DG, N2AA,
>> N2NC, N2NT, KR2Q, N3ED, K3ZO, KM3T, W3ZZ, N5KO, W5OV, N6AA, N6TR, N6TW,
>> N8BJQ, N9RV, W0YK, W0UN, CT1BOH, DJ6QT, DL6RAI, EA3DU, F6BEE, G3SXW,
>> JE1CKA, OH2BH, OH2KI, OH2MM, PY5EG, S50A, UA9BA, VE3EJ, VA7RR
>> from: Jim Neiger N6TJ
>> subject: "The winds of change are a blowin' or The day that contesting
>> 1. QUESTION: Will the CQ CONTEST COMMITTEE open its closed discussions
>> of the fate of Single Operator categories to the public or will we first
>> learn of them when the rules are changed?
>> 2. PREMISE: The CQ CONTEST log checkers cannot efficiently or
>> ascertain as to whether anyone is cheating by the use of packet, claiming
>> to be Single Operator, but when really operating Single Operator -
>> 3. WHAT THE CQ CONTEST COMMITTEE IS CONSIDERING: Given (2), above,
>> eliminate the Single Operator category, and everyone is then Single
>> Operator - Assisted.
>> My opinions / comments:
>> (1) Needless to say, given (3) above, to be competitive all must then use
>> packet, or skimmers, or...................?
>> (2) Can I assume that not everyone desires to use packet or skimmers?
>> (3) Of course, major crutches like packet and skimmers will make all past
>> records null and void. Single Operator - Assisted multiplier totals will
>> soon rival those of the Multi-multi submittals.
>> (4) Packet is used and enjoyed by many. From the DX-end, one can always
>> tell when they've just been spotted; the rate really takes off. Great
>> fun. Many opinions have been stated about the pros/cons/desires of using
>> packet. But at the end of the day, no matter how you slice it, packet,
>> skimmers, and the like, is NOT DXing, represents minimal skills, and is
>> more like the proverbial 'shooting fish in a barrel'. Great competition.
>> (5) QUESTION: Who are these guys that are the members of the CQ CONTEST
>> COMMITTEE and hold our collective fate in their hands? Hard working,
>> volunteer log checkers, for sure. But does anyone remember voting them
>> into office? Who gave them the power to VOTE on these matters of such
>> great importance to us all? For those who extol the merits of our
>> democratic way of life, no matter how pathetic our elected officials at
>> times may be, we at least had the opportunity to vote them in, or out, of
>> TO SUMMARIZE: I have been operating CQ contests since 1955. Many. Won
>> couple, lost a bunch. Needless to say, when I resigned from the CQ
>> CONTEST COMMITTEE in 1978, my power to vote was gone. All I can do now
>> plea: open up your deliberations and discussions on these matters. Let
>> the all of us know who's minds we need to change. What have you got to
>> hide? Please do not make this the death of my contesting career, as it
>> most certainly will. Thank you.
>> s/ Jim Neiger N6TJ
>> 17 January 2010
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
More information about the CQ-Contest