[CQ-Contest] Is it time that the contest sponsors officially identify SCP as "assisted?"

[W0MU]

and I don't recall the any of the contest sponsors asking for input on 
this either.

Ultimately you have to live with yourself, if you think SCP is 
assistance or unlimited then claim it if it makes you feel better. Until 
the rules say otherwise why worry about it?

You still have to copy the callsign and the exchange and relying solely 
on SCP will get you in trouble as there are far too many similar 
callsigns.  It could cost you a mult, points, etc.  It is an AID, just 
like your computer, propagation report etc.

W0MU

On 12/2/2015 9:41 PM, Ed Muns wrote:
> What if the title or label for "Single-Operator Assisted" were
> "Single-Operator Category B"?  Would it then be easier to live with the
> category definition created by the contest sponsor?
>
> SOA is just the name of an entry category.  Yet, year after year, we have
> these inane threads about what each of us thinks the word "assistance"
> should mean.  The debate is completely irrelevant.  All that matters is how
> the contest sponsor defines the category, regardless of the legacy name for
> that category.
>
> Ed W0YK
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of
> Radio K0HB
> Sent: 02 December, 2015 14:45
> To: w2up at comcast.net
> Cc: wa5rtg at gmail.com; john at kk9a.com; cq-contest at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Is it time that the contest sponsors officially
> identify SCP as "assisted?"
>
> The "no code reader" rule bugs me a little bit.
>
>
>
>
> It seems a departure from the "no outside source of Call/QRG" paradigm which
> previously was the generally accepted definition of assistance.
>
>
>
>
> Perhaps the sponsor could share their rationale for this restriction.  As a
> long time CW guy with failing ears......  Well, let's just say that it's a
> growing crowd.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> __73, de Hans, K0HB
>
> "Just a Boy and His Radio"™
>
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 2:37 PM, w2up at comcast.net <w2up at comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>      Yes, automation is on the way. Last month I drove from Denver to Vegas
> and back with no foot on the pedal and no hands on the steering wheel for
> 1400 of the 1700 mile trip. Compared to that, automated contesting is easy!
>   
>> Barry W2UP
>> Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE Smartphone
>> ------ Original message------From: Stan StocktonDate: Wed, Dec 2, 2015
> 8:35 AMTo: john at kk9a.com;Cc: cq-contest at contesting.com;Subject:Re:
> [CQ-Contest] Is it time that the contest sponsors officially identify SCP as
> "assisted?"
>> Making code readers cause you to be in assisted category is a stop measure
> to total automation.  After lunch the other day, my bother who is not a ham
> and who heard nothing but talk of all this for an hour during lunch, told me
> that it seemed a very small step to go from what is being done by a human to
> total automation.73...Stan, K5GO/ZF2ET> On Dec 2, 2015, at 8:00 AM,
> "john at kk9a.com"  wrote:> > Until recently I thought that assisted meant
> getting outside assistance to> find stations, typically multipliers. Skimmer
> made this more complicated> as it really is not anyone else helping you find
> stations. Then the> committee changed the rules to include code readers as
> assisted. Certainly> logging software and computer generated CW are also
> some type of> assistance or why would we use them. There would be no way to
> run on two> bands simultaneously using a keyer and pad of paper.  Where does
> this end?> > John KK9A> > > To:    cq-contest at contesting.com> Subject:
> [CQ-Contest] Is it time that the contest sponsors officially> identify SCP
> as "assisted?"> From:    kr2q at optimum.net> Date:    Mon, 30 Nov 2015
> 23:26:40 +0000 (GMT)> List-post:    mailto:cq-contest at contesting.com>> Yes,
> the sponsors (or their committees) make the rules and the definitions.> > In
> CQWW and other contests, use of a database to alter calls is not>
> allowed...post contest.> > There can be zero doubt that using SCP is using a
> database assembled by> others.> Is there really a difference in changing a
> callsign during the contest via> use> of a db as> compared to changing it
> after the contest via a database?  Think about it.> > Please focus on the
> "database" aspect rather than the timing aspect.> > If CQWW can recognize
> use of a CW decoder (any type, not just skimmer> type) as> assisted,> then
> why not recognize use of SCP as assisted?> > For me (IMHO), use of SCP is
> far more "assisted" than use of a cw decoder.> > If SCP partial is not
> helping you "copy" the callsign, then why use it? > Would> you be happy> to
> operate without it?  If yes, then say so.  If no, say so...and please>
> clarify why not.> > This is an old tune for me.  See my NCJ article from May
> 1996, which covers> many topics,> including SCP.  Don't have it available?
> Write me and I'll send you a copy.> > Some things never change....or can
> they?> > Usual disclaimer about my opinion versus my membership on the
> CQWWCC.> > de Doug KR2Q> > _______________________________________________>
> CQ-Contest mailing list> CQ-Contest at contesting.com>
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest_____________________
> __________________________CQ-Contest mailing
> listCQ-Contest at contesting.comhttp://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq
> -contest
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest