[CQ-Contest] Two Reasons Why Assisted and Unassisted Should BeMerged

[Radio K0HB]

Jim, as a newcomer you may have missed the long and spirited discussions 
here on this topic.

The issue has been settled, and the major contest sponsors support a 
distinction between assisted and non-assisted.

No reason to fix a thing which is not broken.

73, de Hans, K0HB
"Just a Boy and his Radio"


-----Original Message----- 
From: JVarney
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 10:55 PM
To: CQ-Contest at contesting.com
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Two Reasons Why Assisted and Unassisted Should 
BeMerged

I'm a relative newcomer, licensed in '09, small pistol. I admit I have 
little or no clue about a lot of contesting history or some of the 
traditions; I respect them, but I admit I don't know all of them. I can only 
comment on how I see things as they are today.

In my view this whole Assisted vs. Unassisted debate is somewhat overblown 
and out of step with reality. I think the two classes should be merged for 
two reasons:

-- Assisteds Don't Win. In all three classes of the just concluded CQ WW DX, 
the top scoring SOAB HP outscored the top SOAB HP(A). SOAB LP beat SOAB 
LP(A). SOAB QRP defeated SOAB QRP(A). Same result in CQ WPX. I haven't done 
a statistical analysis but looking at the scores it appears there's not a 
big difference between the two categories as a whole. The supposed advantage 
that Skimmer and spots provide to the operator is not visible in the 
results. This doesn't surprise me; I find a lot of the spots to be dead 
ends, either because I can't hear them or they have QSY'd. Half the time I 
end up turning the VFO anyway.

Separate categories only make sense if the results show a measurable 
difference between them. The power categories HP, LP and QRP show this; 
there is a large and clear difference in scores between the three power 
levels. When the distinction between the categories show up in the results, 
it verifies that the categories are providing a useful and clear division.

-- Clusters Assist Running Unassisteds. The popular QRO running stations, 
who are mostly Unassisted, get spotted early and often. This draws the 
Assisteds to running stations like moths to a light bulb. And so while 
running stations aren't using the cluster directly, they benefit greatly 
from it. You can't beat free worldwide advertising! Click here and work 
us...

I see this as a major logical fallacy of the Assisted class: it assumes that 
the effect of using the cluster are confined to the operator using it. In 
reality the cluster impacts both sides of the QSO. The large swarming 
pileups around fresh spots prove that point.

In conclusion I see no downsides to merging Assisted with Unassisted. If you 
want to embrace the latest technology, use the internet and computer-based 
tools. If you want to tune around and find your own contacts, then enjoy 
doing that. The evidence suggests that merging the two styles together in 
one class will cause no harm in their resulting scores and will not change 
the results. If the telnet/cluster/Skimmer experiment has demonstrated 
anything, it's that running stations will always win. And there's one other 
benefit of merging Assisted and Unassisted: it will end the long debates on 
CQ-Contest!

73 Jim K6OK
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest