[CQ-Contest] CQWW - Proposed rule changes.

[brian coyne]

>>but then, at least I'm willing to express that >>as opinion and not fact. - AB7E.

Surely it is opinions on interpretations that need to eradicated if we are ever to achieve clearly defined and understandable rules?
I stand by what I said in that radio contesting commenced as an audio competition, is that not a fact? For sure sure things have evolved, lot's of new technology introduced and I have seen nothing in these posts that are condemning those new aids to our hobby but plenty to suggest that they should have their own place in the entry structure..
Why should I, and other traditionalists, have to fight to preserve our traditional single operator  
status when (and I am tired of repeating this)  an additional category was granted for operators who wish to use all forms of assistance which are not (presently) excluded by the rules? However,  guys whose 'opinions' lead them to believe that  their established tool of choice is not assistance  refuse to switch categories without a fight - why is this? Surely, after several years of increasing numbers in the 'Assisted' category, there is no longer any kudos or admiration to be gained by remaining in the unassisted class.

I believe that my definition is absolute and leaves no room for doubt. If information is gathered  any other way than through an op's own ears via his radio then that is assistance no matter what opinion anyone may have. That is the intention which the rules are attempting to achieve but, as we have seen, the nit pickers are out in numbers bitching rather than just being willing to switch categories  and put an end to these eternal debates.
Visual aids are assistance.Let us look at the two  tools which you have mentioned Dave.CW decoders - a visual aid to assist an operator to achieve an end product he cannot reach by himself. An excellent example given by Randy of an op running a qrg on one band whilst using a de-coder on another band to read and line up calls and mults Or, another fine example, the op using a de-coder in a high speed contest. We would regard that as cheating, so how can we apply an entirely different standard to de-coder use in the CQ Contests?

Waterfalls, Panadaptors and the like. Visual aids that give an edge to users. 
(1) - I lose my run freq, it takes me a while to find a hole on a busy band whereas a glance at a screen could give me several options over the whole band in a trice. (2) Condx are miserable, I am running 15m but there is nothing on 10mtrs, I keep checking (time lost from my runs) , the band is dead, Mults and q's up there would boost the score. How many times have I missed brief openings on other bands in the past? Answer put the Panadaptor on 10m  and whizz straight to a qrg when it blips rather than tuning all the way through the band and, even were I doing it at that same, could easily miss that blip were I higher or lower on that same band.
There could be other benefits from the above or other tools which I haven't mentioned, or don't know about and, no doubt,  many will consider my comments as trivial rather than considering how we can help CQ Contest Committee by accepting the spirit and intentions of any particular rule rather than examine the strict wording looking for get outs. 

We may not always agree with rules and decisions made by committe but we should accept and comply nevertheless, that is the only way to work towards a level playing field.
73  Brian C4Z / 5B4AIZ.






 
     From: David Gilbert <xdavid at cis-broadband.com>
 To: cq-contest at contesting.com 
 Sent: Sunday, 24 May 2015, 20:53
 Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW - Proposed rule changes.
   


It always amazes me how people can be so declarative about "the way it 
is", and so narrowly interpretive of it, when expressing their own 
personal views.

For example, if I happen to read/decode CW off a waterfall display with 
no other decoding I'm pretty certain that does not put me in an assisted 
category ... but then, at least I'm willing to express that as opinion 
and not fact.

Dave  AB7E



On 5/23/2015 9:42 PM, brian coyne wrote:
>    
>        -
>        -
>
>  
>        -
>
>    I am really puzzled and exasperated by this continued debate as to what constitutes assistance. What is there not to understand?
> Let's get back to basics. Our hobby is ham radio, radio being the operative word. Radio, cw or voice, is an audio mode, not in any way a visual mode, we detect it by hearing and information acquired in any other way is assistance - end of.
> If guys use any other means of gathering information, including cw decoders, then what is the big deal why they should not enter the 'Assisted' category?  Beats me.
> 73  Brian  C4Z / 5B4AIZ.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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