Agreed. I don't get this. This assumes that the time before and the time after the contest also count as operating time. What kind of sense does that make? A simpler interpretation is that all time o
I'm not going to pick nits with you Jim. I understand your sense of frustration when you're running a pileup at a good clip, and happen to have a QSO that completely upsets your rhythm. Been there, d
Agreed. I don't get this. This assumes that the time before and the time after the contest also count as operating time. What kind of sense does that make? A simpler interpretation is that all time o
Very simple question -- even simpler answer: Because its fun. For several years now, there have been a number of operators who have been running packet and sending in single-operator logs. They know
This would be a mistake, in my opinion. After all, multioperator stations don't send a different precedence from signal operators. (Albeit most multops send "B") It would also force every bit of logg
I disagree. I see them as turning the contest into something more challenging. For those who try this it, getting a sweep in the same number of Qs is really hard. For one thing, you CANNOT call CQ. Y
I think this perspective is EXACTLY correct. Assisted categories don't generally appear to top contesters. (Although there have been some who have recently tried the assisted category, and they are n
There's no denying the fun factor for the cluster-addicted. That's the best reason to have an assisted category. I supposed you didn't use packet last year, though. Both of your entries for 1998 SS a
True enough. So, we can either drop the useless signal reports, or replace them with something meaningful. But, what's the point? All you'll have succeeded in doing is changing one contest into anoth
Since judging contests is such a thankless task, I thought I might publically thank Dan Henderson, Dave Pruett and the ARRL Contest Branch for their attention to detail. I submitted a CW-only log for
Dan makes a good argument, but there's probably still room for a penalty. Perhaps its time to reduce it from 3 Qs, though. Here's my thinking. Part of the motivation for having a 3 Q penalty for NIL
I objected ealier to changing the precedence just for assisted operators. Later I discovered that they also added a new precedence for multi-operator and school stations. I think these new precedence
Very simple question -- even simpler answer: Because its fun. For several years now, there have been a number of operators who have been running packet and sending in single-operator logs. They know
This would be a mistake, in my opinion. After all, multioperator stations don't send a different precedence from signal operators. (Albeit most multops send "B") It would also force every bit of logg
I disagree. I see them as turning the contest into something more challenging. For those who try this it, getting a sweep in the same number of Qs is really hard. For one thing, you CANNOT call CQ. Y
I think this perspective is EXACTLY correct. Assisted categories don't generally appear to top contesters. (Although there have been some who have recently tried the assisted category, and they are n
There's no denying the fun factor for the cluster-addicted. That's the best reason to have an assisted category. I supposed you didn't use packet last year, though. Both of your entries for 1998 SS a
True enough. So, we can either drop the useless signal reports, or replace them with something meaningful. But, what's the point? All you'll have succeeded in doing is changing one contest into anoth
Since judging contests is such a thankless task, I thought I might publically thank Dan Henderson, Dave Pruett and the ARRL Contest Branch for their attention to detail. I submitted a CW-only log for
Dan makes a good argument, but there's probably still room for a penalty. Perhaps its time to reduce it from 3 Qs, though. Here's my thinking. Part of the motivation for having a 3 Q penalty for NIL