[CQ-Contest] Non-Assisted vs. Assisted

[Rick Dougherty]

Hi Hal...I agree 100% with what you are saying...

de Rick NQ4I

On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 11:09 AM, Hal Kennedy <halken at comcast.net> wrote:
> I don't have a personal stake in the debate as I always run assisted and
> claim it that way.  I do it because I enjoy the interplay of the technology.
> Meanwhile, it is accepted that to date the best SO (A) scores continue to be
> somewhat below the best SO scores.
>
> The point I'd like to make is there are really three categories:
> - SO
> - SO (A)
> - SO (cheating A)
>
> We don't know too much about how the scores of the third category stack up,
> but knowing of a few stations that do it routinely, and who have been caught
> and penalized in some cases and STILL continue to do it, I can offer a
> little insight.  Some of the SO (cheating A) scores are usually in the top
> ten.  In my view that really hurts the sport, plus I really don't understand
> it since those of us who pay attention know who most of them are and
> mentally DQ their scores.  Maybe they like having cartons full of ill-gotten
> walnut?  Beats me.  Most of the SO (cheating A) stations I'm aware of also
> run excessive power.  If you are going to cheat - might as well go all the
> way I guess?
>
> I have no solution to offer other than I think the penalties for getting
> caught running SO (cheating A) should be VERY severe - much more than they
> are now.  A three year ban on the first offense and banned for life on the
> second feels good to me.
>
> I'm posting simply to suggest that the notion that assisted operation hasn't
> caught up with unassisted operation ignores a piece of the puzzle.  SO
> (cheating A) has caught up and perhaps surpassed SO.
>
> 73,
> Hal N4GG/4
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest