[CQ-Contest] Revised 2011 NAQP Rules

[David Robbins]

ah, but the paralympic games are politically correct because they pit handicapped athletes against each other.  we are talking about how a handicapped athlete should compete head to head with a non-handicapped athlete.  in the opinion of some on here a handicapped or otherwise unskilled operator should be forced to compete with 'assisted' operators, who are otherwise normal operators who receive spotting or other assistance during the contest, just because they are using an electronic method of decoding cw.  this should be compared with the evaluation of prostetics used in the regular olympic events.  The ruling there banned "any technical device that incorporates springs, wheels or any other element that provides a user with an advantage over another athlete not using such a device".  now, as those same detractors on here have also noted, the quality of most code readers is not an advantage in a contest situation over a normally skilled cw contester.  So i would say that until an operator using only a code reader can beat a normally skilled cw contester they should NOT be considered assisted and should be allowed to compete in whichever class they want to... they should NOT be forced to compete against the currently defined 'assisted' class that includes use of spotting networks unless they want to... in fact in some contests that don't have a single-op assisted class such a definition would force them to compete against multi-operator stations.


Jan 4, 2011 12:39:23 PM, vs_otw at rogers.com wrote:

Then the paralimpic games also should not be politically correct. But they 
are, indeed. Numerous people take part in them without feeling assaulted.

People having hearing difficulties or so need some assistance by means or 
decoders. No problem with that, let them use decoders. Other people might 
need other kind of assistance. Let them have it. But let them all just 
state, they were assisted. There is no need to create any more new 
definitions.

Why it is such a problem for an assisted operator just to declare, he is 
assisted?

73,
Vladimir VE3IAE

---







----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Robbins" 
To: 
Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2011 7:42 AM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Revised 2011 NAQP Rules


> inadequate and not politically correct... you need a better definition 
> that accounts for those who are either physically or mentally unable to 
> copy by ear, or by eye, or by typing what they can see or hear.
>
>
> Jan 3, 2011 09:06:57 PM, w4pa at yahoo.com wrote:
>
> W5OV:
>
>>The focus instead should be "what are the characteristics of an unassisted
>>single op"?
>
> Ear, not eye.
>
> Scott
> W4PA
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest 

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