[CQ-Contest] Is it time that the contest sponsors officially identify SCP as "assisted?"
kzerohb at gmail.com
Thu Dec 3 11:30:06 EST 2015
First, I should make clear that the contest sponsor, not me, defines "assisted" for their contest, so I won't call my description a "definition". For lack of a better term, let's call it "personal view".
Second, I don't use a "CW to text decoder" (or a "voice to text decoder" for that matter), but I can envision that such a day is in my future.
Now then, to provide my reasoning as you requested.
My personal view of assistance rests on the phrase "log-ready callsign/QRG information developed and sourced from outside my station". The key components of that view are "outside" and "information".
Conversely, if I develop the callsign/QRG information with tools INSIDE my station, in my personal view it should not be considered assistance.
A final key point. You should note that my personal view considers technology used inside my station to be a tool, not information.
__73, de Hans, K0HB
"Just a Boy and His Radio"™
PS: Voice recognition technology is maturing rapidly. Will contest sponsors view it as the equivalent of a CW decoder? If not, why not? How about RTTY decoders?
On Thursday, Dec 3, 2015 at 06:30, Kevan Nason <knason00 at gmail.com>, wrote:
We had a brief discussion about code readers on our local
contest club reflector. Some felt the same way you do. I don’t, but would like
to understand your reasoning for thinking a code reader is not assistance. I
haven’t gotten what I see as a reasonable explanation yet, but am still open to
More information about the CQ-Contest