[CQ-Contest] Suggestions

[Martin , LU5DX]

Simply great post Jeff.
Great analogy with car racing.
I really hope Paul now doesn't say that today's car racing driver are
realtime computer assited hybrid drivers :-)
They still have to be super skilled guys with more powerful and fast cars.
I'm sure some of them are not as skilled as yesteyear's drivers, and it
also apply to ham radio contesting. The fact that packet is there doesn't
mean that there are less skilled ops jumping in a  pile up without even
listening, that happened befor packet too. Many used to call blind.
Packet cluster itself is not a bad thing, it's up to the ops the way they
use it.
But one thing is for sure, removing the assisted/non assisted distinction
will eliminate one big way of cheating where just a few can be caught out
of hundreds using packet, even if it is for gossiping the bands just a bit.
I was taking a look at the 2011 CQ WW DX CW results, there is a very very
tight finish in one of the SOAB categories, despite the two ops involved
are really honest guys, who can tell none of them didn't even looked
at  the cluster for grabbing just a couple extra mults? To be honest no one
can confirm that 100%. Don't take me wrong it is just an example based on
the closed finish by these two great ops.
I really hope CQ WW will follow WAE in this topic, it will certainly be a
fairer CQ WW for us all.
Again, Paul will say what about power cheating, ghost ops, and other bunch
of stuff?
Well, let's start solving one big issue, that can easily be solved!
And for those who doesn't want to use packet, they are still free to do
so!! That's the good thing about it, all in all, some say that SO always
beat SO(A)!

Vy 73.

Martin, LU5DX





On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 12:16 PM, Jeff Clarke <ku8e at bellsouth.net> wrote:

> Contesting has changed so much in the 35 years I’ve been doing it. This is
> mostly due to the technical advances that have been made over the years
> such as computer logging, packet, SO2R boxes, skimmer etc...  It appears to
> me that in today’s world that it’s almost impossible to enforce the current
> single operator un-assisted rules that state those competitors shouldn’t be
> using some of these technologies. Is it maybe time to get rid of the
> “traditional”  single operator category and just replace it with what is
> now allowed in the single operator assisted category ? Seems like this
> would cause much less grief for the contest sponsors that have to deal with
> the cheating that has been happening over the last several years. This
> probably wouldn't solve all the problems but it might help resolve some of
> the bigger issues.
>
> Here is an analogy... I follow auto racing and see many parallels to radio
> contesting. Remember years ago when the only communication the driver had
> with his pit team was a big sign that someone would hold up when they
> zipped by the pit lane?  In today’s world all the teams have radio
> communication and telemetry with their pit and spotters high up in the
> stands. Even with these aids it’s still the skill of the driver that wins
> the race.  I think the same can be said in radio contesting. The time might
> be right to stop living in the past as far as the single operator category
> is concerned ??
>
>
> I would like to close by saying a big THANK YOU to Box Cox, K3EST for all
> the years he ran the CQWW contests. This had to be the hardest job in radio
> contesting running the worlds largest and most popular radio contest. This
> is especially true today with the events of the last few years. Maybe we
> will hear you on the air a little more OM ???
>
>
> Jeff  KU8E
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>