[UK-CONTEST] The writing on the wall-part 2

[Bob Henderson]

<clive.whelan at btinternet.com> wrote:

> I'll tell you what the problem is: catching cheats  and
> dissing them doesn't sell magazines, that's why it only
> featured in the small print this year; what sells magazines
> is a dumbed down ethos, where contest rules appeal to the
> lowest common denominator.
>
> If that's CQ magazine's position, just be honest about it
> like DARC. Then those of us who demur can QSY to some other
> aspect of our wonderful hobby.

Clive

Surely if the above were true, being honest about it might equally do little 
to sell magazines.

Isn't this rather like demanding politicians speak honestly, that we might 
assess them fairly?

It's as unrealistic to believe CQ will actively campaign to reduce their 
magazine sales, as it is to expect politicians will allow the truth to stand 
as an obstacle to their election.

For the record, I also believe the merging of Unassisted and Assisted 
categories to be wholly undesirable.  Where this has occured, I have found 
it very disappointing.

If I could give rise to uninvention of the DX Cluster, I would do so without 
hesitation.  However, such is not within my gift or anyone else's and as 
Roger says, "Cluster is here to stay".  Given this, I have absolutely no 
problem with the existance of an SO Assisted category.  I believe this 
stimulates activity which might otherwise be lacking during contests.  I 
also believe suggestions that SO Assisted should be classified as Multi-op 
are completely ridiculous.  Anyone who can't appreciate the gulf between a 
single person responsible for all operating but having access to cluster 
spots and a full blown M/M operation, simply doesn't want to.  All of those 
who operate SO Assisted see the distinction clearly.

I have operated a couple of events SO Assisted but I didn't like it. 
Consequently, I now only use cluster support in multi-op situations.


Bob, 5B4AGN