[CQ-Contest] No more Unassisted in ARRL VHF Contests?

kr2q at optimum.net kr2q at optimum.net
Mon Nov 17 06:45:20 EST 2014

Dave, G4BUO said:
So Doug, by the same logic do you believe ARRL and perhaps other contest
sponsors should remove the distinction between single and multi-op since
it is hard for the checkers to tell the difference?

In my original post, I also pointed out how contest sponsors retain separate categories for the
various power levels, even though they cannot actually verify that with 100% (or >x% percent?)
of accuracy.  So I "get" (already got) what you are saying.

However, this is really up to the entrants (IMHO).  Does it make sense to have categories that
the contest sponsors cannot verify?  

If the contest community is willing to accept that there are, in fact, cheaters in the world AND
that contest sponsors cannot always find them AND that the published results may not be a 
true reflection of reality, then sure, keep the all of the categories separate.

But if an entrant is counting on the sponsors being able to keep all categories "pure," then
the entrant is only fooling him/her self.

In published surveys, it seems that EU is in favor of allowing spotting assistance for SOAB 
(nice way of saying, no more distinction).  But the majority of USA feels exactly the opposite.

Checking for unclaimed spotting assistance is a huge burden on the sponsors (if they check
at all).  If sponsors did not have to do such checking, my best guess is that the final results
could easily be published in <30 days....possibly even < 14 days.

Consider the contest sponsor.  What is their ethical obligation to the entrants when they
publish "the results?"  If the understanding is, "This is the best we could do and we know 
that there are cheaters in here that for whom we could not adequately demonstrate category drift,"
and the contest community is willing to accept that, then the status quo is fine.  

In closing, these are simply my thoughts on the topic; nothing here is gospel.

If you'd like to continue the discussion, I suggest that we take it off line.

de Doug KR2Q

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list