[CQ-Contest] Why SuperCheckPartial makes you assisted

[Marc Domen]

There is no way to check if anyone is using SCP.
This discussion is meaningless.

73 Marc, ON7SD aka OO9O

sent from my HTC320...
Op 24 nov. 2015 03:26 schreef "Stu Phillips" <stu at k6tu.net>:

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