[CQ-Contest] Idea for re-defining categories - long

[Duane - N9DG]

I have to admit that HF contesting has never been my cup of tea. I'm just not interested in trying to maintain X Q's / minute run rates for hours at a time in crowded band conditions. I used to be heavily into and nationally competitive in V/UHF contesting until the ARRL changed the rules about a year to allow all sorts of Internet spotting assistance up to and including using QSO chat / scheduling pages. Not just allowed as a category, but applied to all categories, so now there's no way to participate by those who don't use, or be not adversely affected by the use of those spotting network technologies. And even if there was still an "unassisted" category, that well has been poisoned by the "free for all" assistance now allowed there. The participant population density on those bands is too low to just "absorb" the two operating styles. Variations of that Internet assistance is now allowed in virtually all VHF and up contests. Needless to say that rule change has completely ruined VHF contesting for me.

There's clearly a similar sentiment for not eliminating the distinction between assisted and non assisted in the HF world. But the rule writing to maintain that distinction clearly stifles technology adoption. Because there are people who do want maximize the technology used in the shack to extract as much from all of the RF coming down the feedlines as possible, but also want no part of that technology or info gained from it being “connected” to or from others during the contest over the Internet etc. in any shape or form.

More food for thought: The rules regarding assistance have always been focused on whether *operator* is assisted or not. It would seem that the focus should be on whether the *station* is assisted or not. Defining whether the station is assisted or not is much simpler than for the operator. Because station assistance would be any band condition or Q making info getting to the operator via means other than from the in-competition antennas, feedlines and the RF processing gear connected to them. The previously mentioned terms "connected" vs. "not connected" do very much apply here.

I can't say that Cabrillo has had any negative impact on any of the contesting that I have done. But then I never really done much HF contesting where that may indeed be a factor

--------------------------------------------
On Sat, 4/9/16, N4XM Paul D. Schrader <n4xm at iglou.com> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Idea for re-defining categories - long
 To: "Duane - N9DG" <n9dg at yahoo.com>, "Duane - N9DG via CQ-Contest" <cq-contest at contesting.com>
 Date: Saturday, April 9, 2016, 10:54 AM
 
 Duane,
 
 You have done a good job below, but you have missed maybe
 the most
 important point.
 The electronic submission at the present-The Cabrillo
 system-and it is a
 system- contains no multiplier information.
 THEIR multiplier info is supplied by the contest sponsor and
 applied to the
 contact information (the call letters) you supply-THUS IT IS
 ASSISTED.  And
 often incorrect.  AND THEY WON'T CORRECT ANYTHING.
 Any score you and your computer logging program might create
 is not ever
 used by the sponsor.
 
 AND THEY HAVE NO INTEREST IN CORRECTING ANY ERRORS THEY MAKE
 IN SEVERAL
 DIFFERENT AREAS, NOT JUST MULTIPLIER AREAS.
 
 I was nationally competitive in ARRL DX contests (from KY)
 at one time and
 contested for over 50 years before Cabrillo. And there was
 computer logging
 and electronic submission before Cabrillo.  Cabrillo
 (and the sponsors)
 runined my hobby and I don't contest anymore.
 
 In case you haven't noticed contesters are second class
 citizens as
 compared to DXers (where everything is handled very well).
 
 Yes, I have talked to many at ARRL and CQ and they do
 nothing.
 
 Pass this along to others.
 
 73
 
 Paul  N4XM