Martin , LU5DX
lu5dx at lucg.com.ar
Sun Sep 16 09:03:36 EDT 2012
Oh gosh Hans!
You are a very smart guy, but please don't force Jeff's the argument, what
you are exposing here is called a syllogism. It is widely used by lawyers
and politicians world-wide.
What you are saying is like the lawyer representing a killer, who wants to
prove he is not the actual killer, because he is a good father.
C'mon, let's start working for a better contesting.
Contest organizers, have in their hands a very specific and easy way to
ensure more valid and transparent results are achieved for everyone in one
very specific aspect where cheating has been hitting hard.
As far as "your" category, it can no longer be effectively proved any more.
So because of personal likes, we are allowing unfair and unsportsmanlike
behaviour by many.
Let's be generous enough and put the convenience of the whole over our
personal likes and dislikes.
In fact, I must recognize that the sense of accomplishment of working mults
without assistance is by far greater than when you do it by clicking on a
band map. That happened to me during last ARRL 10 M contest, when I entered
MS LP with my father. We didin't have an i'net connection and yet, we
enjoyed that contest very much. But that doesn't mean that having the
assisted/non assisted distinction is better for us all.
As I said, ultimately the responsibility of contest organizers is to ensure
transparent and valid results are issued to reward the efforts made by the
On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 1:02 AM, Radio K0HB <kzerohb at gmail.com> wrote:
> Your argument seems to be "since all this assistance is available, we'll
> just assume that everyone ought to use it, and even if they don't, score
> them as if they did". Sort of "If you don't want to run with the big
> dogs, stay on the porch".
> Carrying your argument to it's logical conclusion, we should have just one
> After all, the technology exists. Too bad for you if you don't want 12
> transmitters and their operators in your basement. You're going to be
> scored with those who do. It's not the sponsors fault that you're such a
> Luddite that you can't keep up.
> There are more than a trivial number of us who wish to compete in the
> "traditional" single operator category which you propose to throw away
> because we're too much trouble for the sponsors. Of course we are capable
> of playing electronic point-and-click radio-splatball, but personally I
> have tried that and it's not fun for me.
> Others have a lot of fun in the assisted categories. Good for them ---
> I'm not asking them to play in my category, and I won't play in theirs.
> To use your auto racing metaphor, in the ether my signal runs just as fast
> as yours. A Q exchanged with me is just as valuable as a Q with you, so
> why the hell do you think that I ought to put spotters up in the stands
> just because you use them? How are we "traditional" Radiomen a hindrance
> to your enjoyment of contesting? Why should we just stay on the porch if
> we don't want to run with you "big dogs"?
> Good luck on this on now.
> 73, de Hans, K0HB
> "Just a boy and his radio"
> Proud Member of:
> A1 Operators - http://www.arrl.org/a-1-op
> Minnesota Wireless contesters - http://www.W0AA.org <http://www.w0aa.org/>
> Arizona Outlaws contesters - http://www.arizonaoutlaws.net
> Twin City DX Assn - http://www.tcdxa.org
> Lake Vermilion DX Assn - http://www.lvdxa.org
> CWOps - http://www.cwops.org
> SOC - http://www.qsl.net/soc
> Twin City FM Club - http://tcfmc.org
> Superstition trails --> http://oldslowhans.wordpress.**com/<http://oldslowhans.wordpress.com/>
> Sea stories here ---> http://k0hb.wordpress.com/
> Request QSL at ---> http://www.clublog.org/**logsearch/K0HB<http://www.clublog.org/logsearch/K0HB>
> All valid QSL requests honored with old fashioned paper QSL!
> LoTW participant
> -----Original Message----- From: Jeff Clarke
> Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2012 3:16 PM
> To: cq-contest at contesting.com
> Subject: [CQ-Contest] Suggestions
> 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
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
More information about the CQ-Contest