[CQ-Contest] Non-assisted & Assisted

[Pete Smith N4ZR]

I almost entirely agree with Bob, though I do feel that the absence of 
single-op-assisted categories in some contests is unfair to those who 
are both serious about contesting and want to use assistance.

I think that another analogy fits here.  If you're a traffic cop, your 
objective is not to ensure that every single motorist obeys the law all 
the time.  That would take infinite resources.  Instead, you want to 
focus on keeping the vast majority within the rules, so that they can go 
safely and happily down the road, and on catching and punishing the 
flagrant violators.

The fact that you don't know whether the cop with his radar may be over 
the next hill is a useful way of limiting the number of speeders through 
simple intimidation, but that doesn't mean that you should try to have a 
cop car over every hill.

73, Pete N4ZR
Check out the Reverse Beacon Network at
http://reversebeacon.net,
blog at reversebeacon.blogspot.com.
For spots, please go to your favorite
ARC V6 or VE7CC DX cluster node.

On 1/28/2013 7:32 AM, Bob Naumann wrote:
> I would tend to agree with Pete, but I don't think that anyone is being
> "unfairly penalized" for using assistance.
>
> Also, aside from a few traditionalists who don't like packet, there's not a
> whole lot of criticism of being assisted, and as one who always operates
> assisted, I don't feel any sort of need to defend it nor do I feel unfairly
> criticized.
>
> The problem that does exist, is when those who use assistance lie about it
> and submit their score as unassisted. Thankfully, it seems that most of
> these people have another gene in addition to the "likely to be a sleazy
> cheat" gene, and that is the "stupid" gene. Their behavior betrays their
> lies and it seems that many of them are getting caught. I'm sure there are
> some who do cheat a little and get away with it, but I suppose there will
> always be some small fraction who can get away with something. I do not
> think this is a vast majority.
>
> I also don't see any reason to force those who prefer to operate without
> assistance to do so - which is what combining the two would result in. So,
> combining the two categories into one single op category is something I
> cannot support.
>
> I would like to see every contest have a Single Op Assisted category instead
> of lumping those of us who do this in with multi-ops.
>
> While this may have been a quick and lazy way to handle the phenomena years
> ago without altering the rules of a contest, it is clear that a lot of
> people, myself included, prefer to operate with the cluster running - if for
> nothing else to have a feel for what's going on that because of my limited
> activity, I might not otherwise get.
>
> I'm not going to win even Single Op Assisted, nor is anyone else who is
> casual about operating, but it's just being *honest*.
>
> Thankfully, N1MM now defaults to single op assisted which is helping contest
> adjudicators greatly as most of these casual packet users entries are now
> correctly identified.
>
> No one who is casual about operating really cares what category they are put
> into; but putting even casual assisted single ops in with multi-ops makes no
> sense.
>
> I am not a multi-single! I am not a multi-single!
>
> 73,
>
> Bob W5OV
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of
> Pete Smith N4ZR
> Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2013 9:15 AM
> To: CQ Contest
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Non-assisted & Assisted
>
> There's another dimension of this that should be understood and factored
> in.  Many people operate in "our" contests on a totally casual basis.
> Typically, they do this to increase their country totals for DXCC, or
> states for WAS, or some other award, or simply for the thrill of working
> rare DX  They may make a few QSOs, over an hour or two.
>
> The overwhelming majority of these "grazers" use DX cluster spots to
> increase the return on whatever time they spend in any given contest.
> What we should want to do is to encourage these folks to convert from
> "grazing" to competing, spending more time in our contests, making many
> more QSOs, and helping us continue to grow.
>
> A lot of these same people, I submit, are also attracted to the hobby by
> technology, and particularly by computers and the Internet.  Look at the
> stats for assisted versus unassistedentries in digital contests, where
> manysuch tech enthusiasts tend to congregate.
>
> So what does this have to do with the topic?  I believe that if we
> structure our contests either to exclude assisted participants, or to
> unfairly penalize them (by making them enter as multi-single, for
> example), then we risk turning off the very people we need as the next
> generation's active contesters.  Same thing goes for thoughtless public
> condemnation of assisted operating.  Surely there's room for both, and a
> free choice to be made.
>
> I am *not* advocating merging of the single op categories, simply that
> we not discriminate against (and turn off) potential converts to our cause.
>