I almost entirely agree with Bob, though I do feel that the absence of
single-op-assisted categories in some contests is unfair to those who
are both serious about contesting and want to use assistance.
I think that another analogy fits here. If you're a traffic cop, your
objective is not to ensure that every single motorist obeys the law all
the time. That would take infinite resources. Instead, you want to
focus on keeping the vast majority within the rules, so that they can go
safely and happily down the road, and on catching and punishing the
flagrant violators.
The fact that you don't know whether the cop with his radar may be over
the next hill is a useful way of limiting the number of speeders through
simple intimidation, but that doesn't mean that you should try to have a
cop car over every hill.
73, Pete N4ZR
Check out the Reverse Beacon Network at
http://reversebeacon.net,
blog at reversebeacon.blogspot.com.
For spots, please go to your favorite
ARC V6 or VE7CC DX cluster node.
On 1/28/2013 7:32 AM, Bob Naumann wrote:
I would tend to agree with Pete, but I don't think that anyone is being
"unfairly penalized" for using assistance.
Also, aside from a few traditionalists who don't like packet, there's not a
whole lot of criticism of being assisted, and as one who always operates
assisted, I don't feel any sort of need to defend it nor do I feel unfairly
criticized.
The problem that does exist, is when those who use assistance lie about it
and submit their score as unassisted. Thankfully, it seems that most of
these people have another gene in addition to the "likely to be a sleazy
cheat" gene, and that is the "stupid" gene. Their behavior betrays their
lies and it seems that many of them are getting caught. I'm sure there are
some who do cheat a little and get away with it, but I suppose there will
always be some small fraction who can get away with something. I do not
think this is a vast majority.
I also don't see any reason to force those who prefer to operate without
assistance to do so - which is what combining the two would result in. So,
combining the two categories into one single op category is something I
cannot support.
I would like to see every contest have a Single Op Assisted category instead
of lumping those of us who do this in with multi-ops.
While this may have been a quick and lazy way to handle the phenomena years
ago without altering the rules of a contest, it is clear that a lot of
people, myself included, prefer to operate with the cluster running - if for
nothing else to have a feel for what's going on that because of my limited
activity, I might not otherwise get.
I'm not going to win even Single Op Assisted, nor is anyone else who is
casual about operating, but it's just being *honest*.
Thankfully, N1MM now defaults to single op assisted which is helping contest
adjudicators greatly as most of these casual packet users entries are now
correctly identified.
No one who is casual about operating really cares what category they are put
into; but putting even casual assisted single ops in with multi-ops makes no
sense.
I am not a multi-single! I am not a multi-single!
73,
Bob W5OV
-----Original Message-----
From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of
Pete Smith N4ZR
Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2013 9:15 AM
To: CQ Contest
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Non-assisted & Assisted
There's another dimension of this that should be understood and factored
in. Many people operate in "our" contests on a totally casual basis.
Typically, they do this to increase their country totals for DXCC, or
states for WAS, or some other award, or simply for the thrill of working
rare DX They may make a few QSOs, over an hour or two.
The overwhelming majority of these "grazers" use DX cluster spots to
increase the return on whatever time they spend in any given contest.
What we should want to do is to encourage these folks to convert from
"grazing" to competing, spending more time in our contests, making many
more QSOs, and helping us continue to grow.
A lot of these same people, I submit, are also attracted to the hobby by
technology, and particularly by computers and the Internet. Look at the
stats for assisted versus unassistedentries in digital contests, where
manysuch tech enthusiasts tend to congregate.
So what does this have to do with the topic? I believe that if we
structure our contests either to exclude assisted participants, or to
unfairly penalize them (by making them enter as multi-single, for
example), then we risk turning off the very people we need as the next
generation's active contesters. Same thing goes for thoughtless public
condemnation of assisted operating. Surely there's room for both, and a
free choice to be made.
I am *not* advocating merging of the single op categories, simply that
we not discriminate against (and turn off) potential converts to our cause.
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|