[CQ-Contest] Why SuperCheckPartial makes you assisted

[Stu Phillips]

Randy,

I didn’t suggest doing away with SCP – its a great tool.

For me, its a personal choice and about the spirit of the rules, not the letter there of.

Eliminating SCP or mandating it as assistance isn’t the solution especially as such a rule is pretty much unenforceable.

Personal decision.  Nothing more or less.
Stu K6TU

From: Randy Lake <randyn1kwf at gmail.com<mailto:randyn1kwf at gmail.com>>
Date: Monday, November 23, 2015 at 4:01 PM
To: Stu Phillips <stu at k6tu.net<mailto:stu at k6tu.net>>
Cc: "CQ-Contest at contesting.com<mailto:CQ-Contest at contesting.com>" <CQ-Contest at contesting.com<mailto:CQ-Contest at contesting.com>>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Why SuperCheckPartial makes you assisted

I, for one, do not think that the SCP adds to assisted any more than station automation and the electronic dupe sheet or a second radio. It takes a bit of talent to utilize these. should we do away with in-log dupe checking also? We could all do our own SCP if we had the time and energy but yet could not put together expected spotted calls.
If we are going to bark up this tree we need to do away with SCP totally unless we go to a cloud based database accessed via the chosen category,. ie you choose SO and you do not have access to the SCP (on the cloud)
Just some thoughts.
Randy N1KWF


On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 4:14 PM, Stu Phillips <stu at k6tu.net<mailto:stu at k6tu.net>> wrote:

Posting emails likely to cause a proverbial s-storm is not my intent and certainly not my standard MO. but my role as the maintainer of SuperCheckPartial as well as a regular user of it in contests leave me personally in no doubt…

Using Super Check Partial makes you assisted category in a contest.

Before you reach for the reply key to rip me a new one, let me start with a couple of email snippets from a world class contester (who I respect greatly BTW) reinforcing why I need to release SuperCheckPartial before this coming weekend’s CQ WW contest.

"It seems to me releasing the next SCP file a few days BEFORE CQWW CW would make good sense and help many operators achieve a clearer log.”

And…

"I hope you will reconsider since log accuracy is such an important component in the success or failure for everyone in this event.”

Emphasis added by me to make the point although no reconsideration was required…  I do listen to feedback FWIW.

I’m sure like me you’ve had experience of using SCP to help pull a call sign out of a pile up/QRM/QSB because it gives you a clue for the possible things to listen for – of course, this can be a double edged sword as it can convince you HEARD what you WANTED and so make a bad QLF.

How much more time do you spend verifying a call sign when it does NOT appear in SCP versus when it does?  I know that I am doubly vigilant for a call sign bust both on CW and Phone when the call is NOT shown in the SCP window in my logger.  This improves my accuracy and my rate as I’m less likely to double down on call sign verification.

In the end adherence to the letter and spirit of contest rules comes down to individuals and their own decisions.  When it comes to the spirit of the rules – not what’s written but what one personally thinks is right, that’s a freedom of choice that I completely endorse and respect

For me going forward, I will submit my entries in the assisted category whenever I use Super Check Partial – its clear that it helps with accuracy and likely rate.  Just like using cluster spots or pre-fill files (another set of thorn bushes I’m not going to touch).

Respectfully presented & 73

Stu K6TU

PS:  There will be a note going out shortly revising the SCP release schedule to accommodate the feedback I’ve received (and folks difficulty in planning ahead ;-).


_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest at contesting.com<mailto:CQ-Contest at contesting.com>
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest



--
Randy Lake N1KWF
73 Gunn Rd.
Keene,NH