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

[Duane - N9DG]

In line

--------------------------------------------
On Sat, 4/9/16, Gerry Hull <gerry at yccc.org> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Idea for re-defining categories - long
 To: "Duane - N9DG" <n9dg at yahoo.com>
 Cc: "CQ-Contest" <cq-contest at contesting.com>
 Date: Saturday, April 9, 2016, 11:53 AM
 
 
 Duane,
 Good thoughts.  Beware of
 unintended consequences.
 If
 it goes this way, we will end up with 100 categories in a
 contest, and it will be meaningless.  Let's look at
 another hobby: Sailboat racing.  Even the smallest
 competitor can use advanced technology.  Sail racing
 classes are broken up similarly to how we do it in radio
 contests now.

DG - The category proliferation issue is why I proposed the overlays. Basically the reporting would be to list results of the base category together with the overlay results. The overlay entires then simply being marked as such. So for example the top 3 scores may be the baseline category scores, but maybe the 4th highest score is the first place overlay score. The 4th place overall guy can be satisfied with the 4th place overall ranking of the base category, but can also be "extra" pleased with their first in the overlay. And those who want to ignore the overlay entry can similarly ignore the overlay results as well. It less about making sure everyone "wins" in some fashion than it is about making sure that results reporting reflects what was actually achieved, even though the way it was achieved may be significantly different between the category base and its overlay.


 In VHF
 contesting, ARRL broke up MultiOp into Multi-Limited and
 Multi-Unlimited?  What did that do?  It let a
 fewpeople who complained about not winning win,
 in a completely new category.  It was not a good strategy
 overall, becauseit encourages less activity on
 parts of the spectrum, and leaves the few big unlimited
 folks with no one to compete against.  If
 winning in your own category is the goal of these proposed
 changes, it does not make much sense.     We have old
 records without technology, and new records with.   Surely
 we can find more creative ways to make people
 happy?

DG - I'm well aware of the problems with VHF contesting, and observed fallout for each of those. Briefly:
1. The big flaw with Multi-Op Limited was that it limited the number of bands, it should limit the number of operators instead. Net result - fewer ops / signals on the higher bands.
2. SO3B was intended to allow the Joe 706 and similar DC dayiight user from having to compete with us bigger gun SOLP's - net result many existing SOLP's down shifted to SO3B instead, and negligible increase Joe 706 participation.
3. SO into SOHP/SOLP. Net result - removed motivation to strive for higher power stations, downshift to SOLP (raises hand).
4. Rover rules, oh boy. Bottom line is that they are (still) a mess and only seem to motivate roving near high population density areas (or artificially create them, aka "grid circling"), which is completely the opposite of what the purpose of roving was originally intending to achieve.
5. Assistance "free for all" for the last year now. Just plain #$%^&*.


 Remote
 operation can be "Boy and his Radio", if the
 operator chooses to operate it that way.  Placing Remote in
 a separate category is simply prejudice or ignorance of the
 technology, IMHO.
 Your
 proposals sound like "us" vs the "other"
 -- anything that is not "boy and his radio" should
 be categorized something "else".
 Not a great way to grow Radiosport
 and be inclusive.

DG - I think you miss interpreted my thinking. I actual have minimal qualms with remote operation, but I do think it is inherently an "assisted" style of operating due to its use and dependence on infrastructure and communications paths outside of the RF to/from the antennas and the exclusively amateur band RF processing gear used in the competition. And I think it is appropriate to identify which stations were operating remote, but I also think it is OK to include reporting the remote scores with the non remote scores per my overlay reporting described above. 

DG - The Classic category and its overlay is for those who want nothing to do with in shack skimmers and other advanced RF processing technologies and also want nothing to do with outside of the station connectivity via Internet and spotting networks.

DG - The "unassisted" as I propose seeks to define assistance at a station level vs. an operator level. And seeks to avoid placing any barriers to the types technology that are applied exclusively inside the station to extract information from the RF coming down the feedlines. In the end the ultimate limiting factor will be the humans ability to actually use all the information that the technology can provide them. So the station will ultimately always still be limited by the human, not the technology. And perhaps equally important to not use any external station connectivity via Internet and spotting networks. The unassisted / automated overlay provides a vehicle to build and allow stations where the need for explicit human action to make the Q is removed. But the station itself is still only allowed to get band condition and Q making info from the antennas in the competition itself and from nowhere else.

Duane
N9DG

 
 73, Gerry W1VE