[CQ-Contest] Non-assisted & Assisted

[Steve London]

Sorry, Tonno, but most of your arguments either 1) defy logic or 2) are 
poor reasons for combining the categories. See my comments below.

73,
Steve, N2IC

On 01/28/2013 02:28 PM, Tõnno Vähk wrote:
> Well, just my cents to level the balance of arguments a bit.
>
> I vote for combining Assisted and non-Assisted. Why:
>
> 1. I personally don't mind in taking part in either category - skillful
> SO2R, good pile up management and 48 hour will-power will prevail one way or
> the other.

Written from the viewpoint of someone who is always on the receiving-end 
of 48 hour pileups. For the other 99% of us, combining the two 
categories does not increase our operating pleasure, nor does it lead to 
a feeling of satisfaction for a job well done when it is over. It just 
means more frustration as we spend the weekend mouse-clicking from one 
huge pileup to the next huge pileup.

> 2. Both ways I can have as much fun. Tuning the 2nd/3rd VFO dial or fighting
> in spot pile ups (by the way, the spot pile ups will be smaller and thus
> tuning will be more effective if everyone is assisted!).

This parenthetical statement makes absolutely no sense. When a new 
multiplier shows up on Sunday and is spotted, the pileups will be 
larger, not smaller. Participants who used to be unassisted, will now be 
assisted, and will immediately jump on the spot. In the past, the 
unassisted operators would discover the new multiplier more-or-less 
randomly as they tuned across the band. I pity the poor operator who is 
trying to decipher the ensuing pileup. I also pity unassisted stations 
when the poor operator never signs his call, because he/she assumes 
everyone knows it from the spot.

> 3. I am mostly interested in SSB and there tuning is still very important
> now as cluster does not give you all the mults.

For SSB that is a valid point.

> 4. I am bothered by having two layers of identical categories in CQWW that
> in my mind diminishes the value of both categories and creates unnecessary
> controversy and arguments/accusations.

Only because there is cheating by assisted operators who claim to be 
unassisted. However, as you point out in your next assertion, they are 
being caught.


And now....the real reason why Tonno and others on the CQWW Contest 
Committee are tossing this out for discussion....So that the contest 
organizers can spend their limited time and energy on other forms of 
cheating. Note that until very recently, Tonno was a member of the CQWW 
Contest Committee.

>
> 5. Obligation to check illegal use of assistance takes huge effort from
> contest organizers and delays the contest results. It is a hard job and
> albeit there are good tools (opposite to what some of you are saying) and it
> is possible to determine users of assistance with great (almost 100%)
> likelyhood, it requires a lot of work and commitment and requires will-power
> of a kind that only unfortunately a few have, to make tough calls. Randy can
> make those calls, but it is a big burden on one person and I hate to put him
> in this position. Unfortunately CQWW today does not have people/volunteers
> ready to actually devote time and be able to objectively judge controversial
> cases of potential rule violators without putting their prejudices and
> personal agendas first.
>
> And I am quite sure (anyone wants to bet?) the number of participants would
> hardly be affected by combining the categories.

The total number of participants will likely drop, as a result of 
disgust by those who look for other contests to operate that still have 
respect for the unassisted category.

>
> After all it is purely up to the organizers to decide, but I say go for it
> for all practical reasons (while totally appreciating the plea of those die
> hard manual S&Pers...)
>
> 73
> Tonno
> Es5tv
>