[UK-CONTEST] WAE-CW and DX Cluster

[Nigel G3TXF]

Clive :

Thanks for that sad news from the WAE Contest people. The likely abolition
of the "no packet" category in WAE, (even if it's now no more than a "-" in
the listings) is a real shame. Operating a contest in a "no packet"
single-op category is, IMHO, decidedly more FUN than being locked to the
packet which draws you into mindless pile-ups where no-one (without packet)
knows what's going on.

The "No packet" operator knows that for sure he'll miss some multipliers
that the "packet addict" will get, but so what.

Single-op "No packet" contests are much more satisfying and are really more
enjoyable than always having to jump to the latest wild-cat spot-generated
pile-up. Yes, packet in the multi-op station is also great fun and makes
sense, but for the single-op it's just a pain in most major contests,
particularly in WAE where the QTCs are the real treat!

The implication that we all "have to use packet" simply because the
adjudicators can't check who's cheating is absurd. CQWW appears to have been
making great strides in this area, by disqualifying entrants who claim to be
unassisted single-op but where an analysis of the timing of mults worked and
their associated spots clearly demonstrates otherwise.

73 - Nigel G3TXF




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Clive Whelan" <clive.whelan at btinternet.com>
To: <uk-contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 6:56 PM
Subject: [UK-CONTEST] Is the writing on the wall?


>I submitted a token entry for WAE CW last year, because it
> is still-imo-the best conceived event in the contest
> calendar, by a considerable margin, requiring the highest
> level of skill in respect of the QTC exchanges. Sadly, the
> event has been emaciated in recent years, by the allowing of
> cluster support, without an unassisted category. DARC have
> been at pains to point out that the rules are however, not
> immutable, and regularly invite comments thereto. I
> therefore congratulated them on their legendary efficiency
> in running this contest, whilst simultaneously berating them
> for not having a clear unassisted category.
>
> I was therefore saddened, although not entirely surprised to
> receive the following response.
>
> <snip>
> Thank you for your thoughts.
>
> DX Clusters are available everywhere and it is the hardest
> of all rules to
> check wether someone has used it or not. Contesting is the
> art to unite
> excellent operating skills with maximum application of
> technology. For the
> WAEDC with already 4 classes to compete for 700 logs.
> Another two classes
> would to much.
>
> We are actually discussing to get rid of the "-" in the
> lists indicating non
> assistant.
>
> <snip>
>
> Whilst one may sympathise with their predicament in actually
> catching the cheats, the second sentence seems to suggest
> that the use of clusters is a legitimate application of
> technology, a view with which I could have no truck. Several
> other major ( in terms of popularity at least) contests have
> now also adopted the use of clusters as the default
> condition. Although I am no fan of the mid-Atlantic culture,
> it seems that those events organised on its shores remain
> the bastions of contesting rectitude. I do question however,
> whether the writing is on the wall.
>
>
> 73
>
>
> Clive
> GW3NJW
>
> _______________________________________________
> UK-Contest mailing list
> UK-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest
>
>