[CQ-Contest] Rules for SAC 2020

Sun Aug 23 12:03:43 EDT 2020

Barry,

Yes, it is true, I might operate Unassisted as a choice, but it will NOT
make me in place for one of the plaques.

And I have been operating SAC seriously for many years and won several
European Continental Winner plaques. I have good reasons to evaluate how
much Assisted or Non-Assisted means in this contest, and there is huge
difference.

Paul might not have worked SAC as much as others, but I like his analytics
and reasoning. I could have used exactly the same arguments, to this email
is great support of his view. On every sing;le aspect, including the wish
that SAC CC swallow the reality and agree that this is was a mistake, and
that this mistake is not rectified simply because they allow people to add
the letter N as an indication that they worked without the assistance.

The effort of winning SAC from outside Scandinavia is many times bigger if
not using assistance. You need to find the casual Scandinavians that maybe
only work 50 contacts or less. You need to manage to move them from one
band to the other, by estimating conditions and likelihood that the contact
on another band will be possible. You need to look for the odd openings and
not just let others find them and then like a swarm of bees, 50 other
stations will get the same benefit when the cluster announces that odd
opening.

I am very hesitant to be part of the click euphoria that the new SAC CC
rules are dictating. Before, 60% of the non Scandinavians had to personally
look for the station. Now, all of them will be served on a golden tray.
Not interesting at all - I have tested Assisted in SAC 2019 to get a full
understanding of that reality too. This year I had already decided to work
unassisted again, but now I am seriously considering not to work at all,
until SAC CC changes back to the same rules that 60% favoured in 2019.

As Paul expressed, there is still a chance for the committee to listen to
the customers:  Remove this rule or any of the emergency modifications
imposed as some sort of bad compromise. There are many (the majority) that
disagree with the decision of SAC CC to remove unassisted.

73 de Mats RM2D (SM6LRR)

Den sön 23 aug. 2020 kl 18:29 skrev Barry W2UP <w2up.co at gmail.com>:

> Nobody is saying someone can't operate unassisted if they so choose.
> Scores over the years have shown it's not necessarily an advantage.
> Paul, you can also log on paper and a straight key, if you'd like.
>
> Barry W2UP
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 23, 2020 at 9:04 AM Paul O'Kane <pokane at ei5di.com> wrote:
>
> > 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
> > >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > CQ-Contest mailing list
> > 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
>