[CQ-Contest] Where to Draw the Line was: Re: Does Using ViewProp Make You Assisted

[Paul O'Kane]

On 30/11/2013 05:01, Rick Kiessig wrote:

 > Ultimately, the word "assistance" should have a very specific meaning:
 > being helped by another live human, whether local or distant.

Well, that's one opinion.


 > Most of our shacks are full of technical devices of all kinds, which
 > help us in various ways. To lump any of them, including multi-channel
 > decoders, in with another live human is just silly.

All relevant technology assists, one way or another.
Many CW operators think it's silly to use a multi-
channel CW decoder in a CW contest.


 > All that's going to accomplish is drive the use of such tools 
underground,
 > and make it less and less fun for those of us who do follow the rules.

Those who don't like the rules for SO may avail of
the SO-Assisted option - with fewer restrictions.


 > Multi-channel decoders and the like are simply tools, and using them
 > is just a different way of operating.

That's right, and using a multi-channel decoder in
CQWW is just a different way of operating - that tool
makes you "assisted".


 > They can just as easily turn into a giant waste of time and effort as be
 > helpful.

That's true, but it's not relevant.  In "assisted"
it's your choice whether to use them.


 > The same thing is true for bandscopes, SO2R, super check partial, 
bandmaps
 > and even logging software; the list is endless. These are all just tools
 > -- useful in some hands, detrimental in others -- and one op's 
decision to
 > use them certainly doesn't interfere with anyone's choice to use a 
VFO and
 > tune around the band that way.

That's true also, and they are all permitted in SO
categories in CQWW.  Note, however, that not all
technology is permitted all the time - SCP is
prohibited for WRTC 2014 teams.


 > In addition, if you're mainly running, and rarely S&P, your use of a 
multi-
 > channel decoder won't help you make any additional QSOs.

That's true.  Again, it's your choice whether to Run
or S&P - it's called tactics.


 > However, in that case, when others spot you, those spots can play a huge
 > part in making lots of QSOs *for you*, whether you claim to be 
"unassisted"
 > or not. That so many who enter as unassisted seem to deny this basic fact
 > baffles my mind.

Here's something else that may baffle your mind :-)
Stations with big antennas play a huge part in
making lots of QSOs "for "you", by picking up your
weak signals.  By your logic, anyone benefiting
from other stations' big antennas, not to mention
the operator's good ears, is clearly being helped
by other live humans.


 > CW Skimmer Server and the RBN have *certainly* boosted QSOs and 
scores for
 > many so-called unassisted ops.

That's true.  Unassisted ops benefit indirectly
from other assisted ops - it has always been that
way.  I like being spotted :-)


 > Personally, I want to encourage innovation and new ways of operating. I
 > realize there are some who don't like change -- and that's OK;

It has nothing to do with not liking change.  ZL2HAM
doesn't seem to have read previous posts.


 > there's no reason why they have to use the new stuff. But to push those
 > restrictions on the rest of us is counter-productive,

ZL2HAM is out-of-step with the rest of us single
ops.  He has the option of using multi-channel CW
decoders in the "assisted" category - it's called
choice.

<snip>

 > If the no-assistance purists really want to compete against other
 > purists,

The word "purists" is used here in the derogatory
sense, implying "luddites".  All competitive activities
impose restrictions - should we consider chess
competitors who don't use computers to be purists?

CW contesters who choose not to use multi-channel
CW decoders like to compete only with those who
think the same way.  I'm encouraged that most major
contest sponsors agree.

73,
Paul EI5DI