[CQ-Contest] Claiming assistance when not actually assisted

RT Clay rt_clay at bellsouth.net
Thu Dec 3 12:06:35 EST 2015

I really don't see a problem with this. Being in the assisted class just means you CAN use assistance, it doesn't force you to, and it doesn't say how much you have to use. How many packet spots do you have to look at to really be "assisted": 1, 10, 100, 1000 :) ? 

Why not automatically enter all unassisted entries in both the unassisted and assisted categories? 


    On Thursday, December 3, 2015 9:54 AM, Tim Shoppa <tshoppa at gmail.com> wrote:

 I would strongly discourage anyone from claiming assistance when not
actually assisted by the official rules. This smells too much of "gaming
category to get a plaque" and could easily result in an unassisted operator
getting a plaque that was actually intended for a truly, by-the-rules,
assisted operator.

I note that in CQWWCW 2013, if the #3 USA unassisted operator had claimed
assistance, he would've been #1 USA assisted. I could come up with many
other such examples, especially in WRTC qualifying years.

I also note that in my first ever RTTY contest (ARRL RTTY RU 2012), I was
unassisted-low but I carelessly sent my log in such a way, that the robot
put me in assisted-low which (because there was no single-op assisted
category) means that my log was put in the MSLP category. I saw this in the
robot's message but didn't pay any attention at the time because it was my
first RTTY contest ever and I knew I wasn't a contender. Just a few months
later I go to a club meeting, and everyone congratulates me on setting a
new record for MDC MSLP (which is how assisted single-ops were categorized
at the time.)

To this day I can still go to the ARRL website and see it says I still hold
that record, a record I do not actually deserve:

Tim N3QE
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest at contesting.com


More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list