[CQ-Contest] Rules for SAC 2020

[Paul O'Kane]

On 23/08/2020 01:05, David Gilbert wrote:

> Given a choice I generally prefer unassisted operation myself,

That's my point - the "SAC folks" have unilaterally removed that choice  
- and dressed it up as "allowing for assistance in all categories".  A 
fine example of doublespeak.

> but that seems like a lot of umbrage 

Umbrage?  Hardly - it's a complaint on principle, and on behalf of the 
clear majority of single-op entrants in the 2019 CW SAC contest who 
chose to operate Unassisted, who were not consulted about the change, 
and who will be denied the choice in 2020.

Scandinavia:  Unassisted 130,  Assisted 56  - 70% unassisted.
Non-Scandinavia:  Unassisted 527,  Assisted 340  -  61% unassisted.

> toward the folks doing all the work

That's my point. They may have been doing all the work, but they're 
proposing not to do it in future.  The work includes a rigorous check of 
the logs of the leading Unassisted entrants - to verify their status.  
It seems the SAC folks (the Contest Committee) are no longer prepared to 
do this, and are thereby reneging on their responsibilities.

> ...  The SAC folks don't owe you (or me) anything.

Really?  Then let's turn it around a little.  If the CQ WW or the ARRL 
DX Contest Committees unilaterally "allowed for assistance in all 
classes", would anyone still say they don't owe you (or me) anything?  
They simply wouldn't get away with it - and neither should the SAC 
Contest Committee.

73,
Paul EI5DI


>
> Dave   AB7E
>
>
> On 8/21/2020 3:43 PM, Paul O'Kane wrote:
>> On 21/08/2020 21:06, SM5AJV wrote:
>>> UPDATE
>>> After publishing the rules for SAC 2020 we have got some reactions on
>>> allowing for assistance in all operator categories.
>>
>> "Allowing for assistance in all operator categories" may be true, but 
>> it is not the whole truth.  What you (the SAC Committee) have done is 
>> abolish the SO Unassisted category. This benefits no one but you - 
>> the contest sponsors.
>>
>>>   The reason behind the
>>> change is that we want to reduce the number of operator categories and
>>> plaques.
>>
>> That is nonsense.  I see no evidence of a shortage of plaque donors 
>> for SO Unassisted.  Again, reducing the number of operator categories 
>> benefits no one but you - the contest sponsors.
>>
>>> The reduction will also make the log handling and checking easier
>>> for the log checker.
>>
>> That's true - but it also represents an abdication of responsibility 
>> for verifying that the leading unassisted entries actually were 
>> unassisted, for which there are long-standing and well-established 
>> techniques.  Did anyone on the Committee contact the sponsors of the 
>> major contests (CQ, ARRL, IARU) to see how they do it?  I suspect not.
>>
>>> In order to recognize operators that prefer not using any assistance we
>>> have decided that you are able to state if you operated without any
>>> assistance when submitting the log. Operators who participate without
>>> assistance will be marked with (N) after the call in the ranking lists.
>>
>> That looks like a cop-out to me.  I invite the SAC Contest Committee 
>> to address its responsibilities and reinstate SO Unassisted now - 
>> before the contests next month.
>>
>> 73,
>> Paul EI5DI
>>