[CQ-Contest] Assisted

Jeff Clarke ku8e at ku8e.com
Fri Aug 17 11:36:50 EDT 2018

I've never understood the reasoning by contest sponsors that you are 
only considered to be running one transmitter if you are doing SO2R. 
Most of the serious SO2R guys are running on two bands at the same time 
so they are occupying two frequencies. They might be not transmitting on 
both of these frequencies simultaneously, which is a loophole in the 
rules for them to be considered to be the same as a single-operator 
using one radio. Plus they vigorously defend both of their frequencies 
and won't hesitate to chase you off if you try to grab one of their 
frequencies when they are transmitting on their 2nd radio. Then the 
contest sponsor will group you all into one single-operator class which 
really isn't fair. The rules should really state the number of radios 
you are using not the number of transmitted signals you have to classify 

The truth is that no one using one radio can come close to competing 
with someone doing SO2R. I'm not saying that SO2R should be banned. What 
I would like to see is maybe an unlimited class where you can use 
spotting networks, skimmer and also do SO2R. Then have an other class 
which is more like the traditional single-operator. One radio and one 
band at a time. Remember years ago when operating strategy was 
important? What band should I be transmitting on to maximize my score or 
should I stop running and QSY to some other band to find multipliers? 
All this assistance that's available with today's technology and being 
able to run on more band at a time has thrown that strategy out the window.

I remember years ago a famous contester we all know wrote an article in 
NCJ that stated Multi-Multi should be banned. I think the goal of the 
article was to provoke some thought s because the guys in these 
categories always had the prime frequencies on every band and maybe that 
wasn't fair. I would sure like to see some thoughts about my perspective 
on SO2R.


On 8/17/2018 09:33 AM, Yuri wrote:
> I think the definition of the category should be really based only on a number of operators and number of transmitted signals at a time.
> Single OP or Multi Op (different numbers of TX's). That's it.
> If a single Op can do what a bunch of people together can't - why should he be handicapped?
> If he can utilize all of the technology and all by himself (without physical help of other people) - why should we call him assisted? Only because a bunch of "ordinary" people can't do the same?
> Of someone is using OCF dipole instead of monoband Yagi, or if someone doesn't have Internet in the shack - that's his own choice. Everyone else doesn't have to "downgrade" because of that.
> Yuri VE3DZ
> -----Original Message-----
> From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Trent Sampson
> Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2018 5:47 PM
> To: CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Assisted
> Assisted is really not assisted - 2BSIQ Two Band Synchronised interleaved QSOs have left the assisted operator in its dust...
> It is really time to reconsider whether Assisted is truly an advantage anymore and deserving of its own category...
> Assisted by my definition is the sourcing of callsign, band and frequency information from any source other than your radio system.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: CQ-Contest <cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com> On Behalf Of Stanley Zawrotny
> Sent: Wednesday, 15 August 2018 1:06 AM
> To: CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> Subject: [CQ-Contest] Assisted
> Ken,
> Is remembering a well-known callsign assisted?
> Stan, K4SBZ
> "Real radio bounces off the sky."
> _______________________________________________
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

*Jeff Clarke*
Information Technology Professional
Ellerslie, Georgia

KU8E.com <http://www.ku8e.com/>

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list