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

[Yuri Blanarovich]

Ham radio is the technical sport/hobby. Uses gadgets, equipment, radios, 
computers, antennas.....

Why is it so difficult to consider ASSISTANCE by other person, operator, 
human being???
We should be free to apply technology in OUR SHACK as part of the 
equipment.
Our own antennas (within QTH definition), radios, computers, gadgets, 
software are part of our station and whatever they do is part of our 
effort/equipment. Skimmer using our antennas at our location is part of 
equipment.

Assistance by another operator, human being, or equipment outside of our 
station (via internet or whatever) remote receivers, would be ASSISTANCE 
and put operator/entry in ASSISTED category.

This classification would clear the ambiguity in the "ASSISTED problem" 
and promote use of technology in our shack and separate the assistance 
from the outside, which is the real delimiter.

Otherwise where do you stop at the assistance?  Internet, keyers, 
computers, logging programs,....???

Skimmers used at one's station would minimize the crazy pileups via 
internet skimmers. Why are we using internet and reverse beacons 
anyway? The art of hunting is diminished to hunting in the ZOO!

Just like DXCC was destroyed with NETS and LISTS, the contesting is 
being destroyed by weird logic and gadgets being considered 
"assistants".

Just my two koppeckes. Frankly, I am being turned off from my second 
love of contesting, just like lists and nets poisoned my love of DXing.

Can we use some logic??? What's next? Looking out of window for storm 
clouds is assistance???
 
73 de OF Yuri, K3BU.us
www.MVmanor.com




 
 
 On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 12:17 PM, Randy Thompson K5ZD wrote:
 
 > Your definition is certainly one, but I don't think it is the most 
common.
> The traditional sense of assistance is anything (people or technology) 
> that
> helps you find QSOs.
>
> It would make things a lot easier if we had a universal definition for 
> what
> assistance means in the context of radiosport.  Or if we could come up 
> with
> some new words and definitions that would allow us to start over 
> without all
> of the baggage.
>
> CQ and ARRL contests have definitions.  Most of the rest of the 
> contests
> have given up on the distinction.  As a result, this topic has very 
> mixed
> perspectives depending on the location and age of the participant.
>
> Enjoying the discussion.
>
> Randy, K5ZD
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf 
>> Of
>> Rick Kiessig
>> Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2013 5:01 AM
>> To: 'reflector cq-contest'
>> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Where to Draw the Line was: Re: Does Using
>> ViewProp Make You Assisted
>>
>> Ultimately, the word "assistance" should have a very specific 
>> meaning:
>> being helped by another live human, whether local or distant. 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 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.
>>
>> Multi-channel decoders and the like are simply tools, and using them 
>> is
>> just a different way of operating. They can just as easily turn into 
>> a
>> giant waste of time and effort as be helpful. 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.
>>
>> 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. 
>> 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.
>> CW Skimmer Server and the RBN have *certainly* boosted QSOs and 
>> scores
>> for many so-called unassisted ops.
>>
>> 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; 
>> 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, and in fact self-defeating 
>> in
>> the long run (and yes, we are pushed, there's no doubt about it). On 
>> the
>> one hand, the community bemoans the lack of new and younger 
>> participants,
>> while on the other, discouraging the very kinds of things that would
>> attract them.
>>
>> If the no-assistance purists really want to compete against other
>> purists, then the "unassisted" category should require a sprint-like 
>> QSY
>> after every QSO to minimize the usefulness of spots to help others 
>> find
>> *them* -- and "assisted" would be "everything else." If you don't 
>> want to
>> benefit from using spots to find others, then you shouldn't benefit 
>> from
>> others using spots to find you. I don't like that dividing line 
>> nearly as
>> well as the one I proposed before (onsite vs. offsite), but it would
>> still be an improvement over what we have today. (having said that, 
>> one
>> advantage of a sprint-like approach is that it's relatively easy to
>> enforce on the log-check side).
>>
>> 73, Rick ZL2HAM / ZM1G
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
>> 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
>