[CQ-Contest] Why SuperCheckPartial makes you assisted

[Jorge Diez CX6VM]

Hi Stu 

Ok that is your personal desition, but rules point the limit from assisted and not assisted 

If I follow what you think, I must log with a pen and paper, with all this tools off (SCP, history files), the software still tell me when I log a dupe

73,
Jorge
CX6VM/CW5W

Enviado desde mi iPhone

> El 23 nov. 2015, a las 23:45, Stu Phillips <stu at k6tu.net> escribió:
> 
> Marc,
> 
> Discussion is not meaningless and I made the same point about enforceable rules.  Its a matter of personal philosophy.
> 
> One of my friends told me he’d spent an entire evening arguing with a professor of philosophy at Stanford University about the “heap of sand paradox”.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox
> 
> "A typical formulation involves a heap of sand, from which grains are individually removed. Under the assumption that removing a single grain does not turn a heap into a non-heap, the paradox is to consider what happens when the process is repeated enough times: is a single remaining grain still a heap? (Or are even no grains at all a heap?) If not, when did it change from a heap to a non-heap."
> 
> Like the heap, at some point what is acceptable transfers into what is not.
> 
> I’m just glad there is an assisted category so my conscience will remain clear!
> 
> It’s a matter of where one personally draws the line – not about unenforceable rules.
> Hopefully this is now clear.
> 73’s
> Stu
> 
> 
> From: Marc Domen <on7ss.oo9o at gmail.com<mailto:on7ss.oo9o at gmail.com>>
> Date: Monday, November 23, 2015 at 6:34 PM
> To: Stu Phillips <stu at k6tu.net<mailto:stu at k6tu.net>>
> Cc: Contest Reflector <cq-contest at contesting.com<mailto:cq-contest at contesting.com>>, Randy Lake <randyn1kwf at gmail.com<mailto:randyn1kwf at gmail.com>>
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Why SuperCheckPartial makes you assisted
> 
> 
> 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<mailto: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><mailto: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><mailto:stu at k6tu.net<mailto:stu at k6tu.net>>>
> Cc: "CQ-Contest at contesting.com<mailto:CQ-Contest at contesting.com><mailto:CQ-Contest at contesting.com<mailto:CQ-Contest at contesting.com>>" <CQ-Contest at contesting.com<mailto:CQ-Contest at contesting.com><mailto: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><mailto: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><mailto: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<mailto: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