[CQ-Contest] Non-assisted & Assisted

Mon Jan 28 19:52:38 EST 2013

Sorry Steve.
Your arguments do either 1) defy logic or 2) are poor resoning for not
combining the categories. See my comments below.

"...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...."

Nobody forces you to use packet assistance if categories are merged.  You
can continue to operate as you please. In fact, most juicy multipliers are
found by just tuning up and down the band and you usually spend less time
calling the DX than if you jump on a packet generated pile up.

"....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...."

Participants who used to be unassisted, will continue to be unassisted. At
least a big portion of them, specially those running LP or QRP where the
use of packet cluster  certainly  doesn't represent any advantage. Au
contraire, it is detrimental to your score.

"....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..."

No. They are not being caught. And there is no way to determine if a
contester has used a DX cluster to take advantage of 1, 10 or 30 mults over
the  weekend. Pretending that is possible to a 100 % is not serious.

"....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...."

Is that some sort of esoteric prediction? The number of participants in WAE
continue to grow year after year. Why do you guys say such things?

I am truly amazed at how conclusions are made about this topic, without
facts or statistical data.

I guess it's up to contesters to enter or not a contest. We'd rather have a
contest with half the participants, but where we know every POSSIBLE aspect
is under control to ensure fair results for all entrants.

Is that the way to contribute to our sport by not entering if something
doesn't fit our likes? We'll if that the case. Let it be.

And most important. People will continue to operate the way they want,
because all this won't have any impact on the vast majority of entrants. It
will only remove one possibility of cheating for top entrants, be it at a
world, zone or country level. That is IT. No more than that.

Vy 73.

Martin, LU5DX

On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 8:41 PM, Steve London <n2icarrl at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>>
>>  ______________________________**_________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/**mailman/listinfo/cq-contest<http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest>
>