[CQ-Contest] Non-assisted & Assisted

Mon Jan 28 20:19:07 EST 2013

Exactly.
That would surely ensure 100 % fair results for everyone. And that would
make contesting a true competition, where you ONLY compete against yourself
and see how well you can do. In fact, most entrants be it casual or part
timers compete only with themselves. To improve last year's score, or mults
totals and so on and they are generous enough to send in their logs. Those,
the vast majority,  ARE honest. Those are the ones that actually make
contesting happen.
Being crudely honest contesting is not a competition if you consider it
otherwise:  Dissimilar geography, dissimilar hardware, dissimilar
everything....

Nonetheless, you are taking the reasoning to an extreme, and it is not the
same logic that needs to be applied to other big problems in contesting.

It is like saying hey let's not find a cure for decease A, because we
cannot find a cure for decease B. The logic you attempt to apply falls by
its own weight.

So let's at least be realistic, and try to determine what is best for the
"sport".

I could simply shut up and continue to enjoy better chances to rank high in
the standings if SO and SO(A) remain separated. But ain't that selfish?

Vy 73.

Martin, LU5DX

On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 9:10 PM, Jim Jordan, K4QPL <k4qpl at nc.rr.com> wrote:

> Now I think I understand what is being said:
>
> 1)  There is no honesty in ham radio to follow the rules so we should drop
> the rules;
> 2)  It's also too much trouble to enforce the rules;
> 3)  Assistance does not increase the score;
> 4)  Those who use assistance don't believe it increases their score but
> they do it anyway;
> 5)  There will be no loss of participation if assisted and unassisted are
> put in the same class;
>
> If that is true, then let's use the same logic for all the rules--power,
> TB-S antennas, simultaneous signals, number of operators, remote receivers,
> remote transmitters, antenna circles, etc. etc. All of those rules should
> be dropped since someone will cheat and it's too much trouble to detect and
> enforce them. And for a good op, those little things shouldn't matter
> anyway.
>
> So after every contest, the contest organizers will just list all the
> scores in numerical order from highest to lowest and everyone will be
> wonderfully happy. The assisted multi-multi at 4 Kw with 6 towers has
> obviously competed fairly with the unassisted QRP Triband-Single since
> everyone is in the same class.
>
> 73,
>
> Jim, K4QPL
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Martin , LU5DX" <lu5dx at lucg.com.ar>
> To: "Tõnno Vähk" <tonno.vahk at gmail.com>
> Cc: "Pete Smith N4ZR" <n4zr at contesting.com>; <cq-contest at contesting.com>
> Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 5:09 PM
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Non-assisted & Assisted
>
>
> Not only you are a great op. You really see what's best sport in the long
> run (and in the short run too).
> Despite the fact that organizers spend a great deal of effort trying to
> catch packet cheaters, to some extent it is an exercise in futility.
> They (the cheaters) DO know how to get away with it.
> It's been proven that SOs mostly achieve higher scores than SO(A), so those
> who still opt not to use DX clusters can do so, without any impact to their
> operation.
> This debate is not about personal likes, it is about being able to say D
> beat R and no unfair advantage was possible at all regarding chasing mults
> because both are allowed to use DX alerting it if they want.
>
> Hats off to you Tono!
>
> Vy 73.
>
> Martin, LU5DX
>
> PS: Furthermore, WRTC arbitrary diminishes the chances of SOAB(A) in favor
> of SO. You can get more points doing a partial effort SOAB than if you
> sitck your "rear end" to the chair for 48 hours straight. Makes no sense,
> some of those could have taken unfair advantage and remain undetected, even
> if its for just one mult. How did WRTC CC concluded a SOAB(A) effort is
> worth .08 of a SOAB? I certainly cannot answer that. It is like if your
> chances to qualify were based upon the category you choose, not the efforts
> you make...weird. There has been a lot of "category jumping" and
> speculation to avoid direct competition, which really sucks to say the
> least. But well... rules are rules.
>
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 7:28 PM, Tõnno Vähk <tonno.vahk at gmail.com> 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.
>>
>> 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!).
>>
>> 3. I am mostly interested in SSB and there tuning is still very important
>> now as cluster does not give you all the mults.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@**contesting.com<cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com>]
>> On Behalf Of
>> Pete Smith N4ZR
>> Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 7:37 PM
>> To: cq-contest at contesting.com
>> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Non-assisted & Assisted
>>
>> I *think* PY5EG was agreeing with keeping them separate.  Oms?
>>
>> 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 8:51 AM, kd4d at comcast.net wrote:
>> > Hi Jim:
>> >
>> > K5ZD, PY5EG, and LU5DX, among many others, ARE saying "get rid of
>> assisted
>> categories."
>> >
>> > To quote their recent e-mails:
>> >
>> > K5ZD:  >> For these contests where there is no assisted category,
>> > instead of making yet another category, why not just allow single ops to
>> use assistance?!
>> >
>> > LU5DX:  >> Amen!!!!!!!
>> >
>> > PY5EG:  >> I totaly agree
>> > I always fight for that on CQ Committee
>> >
>> >>> Randy,
>> >>>
>> >>> I still think you are missing the point. No one is saying not to
>> >>> have assisted categories. [...]
>> >>>
>> >>> 73,
>> >>>
>> >>> Jim, K4QPL
>> > 73,
>> >
>> > Mark, KD4D
>> > ______________________________**_________________
>> > 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>
>> >
>>
>> ______________________________**_________________
>> 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>
>>
>> ______________________________**_________________
>> 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>
>>
>>  ______________________________**_________________
> 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>
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> 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>
>