> Which is why I think we need to strategically move past the assisted/
> unassisted argument.
>
> Assitance is an artifact of history it was an attempt to cope with
> packet networks while not changing rules too much and losing
> comparability of past records. To persist with using the word
> as a major rules segmentation device is no longer usefull or sensible.
The word "assisted" has always been shorthand for "single operator
plus cluster" and those who persist on focusing on "assistance"
rather than the "involvement of another person or persons" miss
the point.
> That is why I suggested that we have a single op open section -
> One op/one signal/one location but as many inputs and as much
> technology as that one person can deal with.
There is a significant difference between technology located in
a single operator station, using antennas/receivers located in the
"magic circle" and other individuals/recovers/antennas located all
over the world.
> Then define another section (Classic?) based on a list of permitted
> technologies to restrict it to "a boy and his radio" or whatever we
> choose as an appropriate classification.
I fail to see the difference whether the technology automatically
calls CQ or automatically prints a list of "stations heard." Both
relieve the operator of a portion of the burden of operating the
station but neither relieves the operator from the need to make the
"strategic" decisions (e.g., should I be running or S&P, should I
be on 20 or 10, is it appropriate to take some off time, or should
I look for a new run frequency?).
Technology has never been used to differentiate between stations.
Operators have adopted new technologies of all kinds based on a
variety of personal criteria but sponsors have not created new
classes for every new technology to avoid "losing comparability
of past records." In fact, there is no way one can compare the
scores of "single operator" entries in the 21st century with those
of single operator entries in the 1960's or 1970's - technology is
so massively different that there is no comparison.
> If we keep this assisted designation it will cause even more
> problems with technologies on the horizon. We need a single
> op open!
The "assisted" designation is poorly expressed, but there is no
need to change the basic structure. If we understand that
"assisted" should have been expressed (as it was originally) as
"Single Operator plus cluster" and is nothing more than a way
to provide a place for "SO+" entries without making them compete
with the "tag teams" in the multi-single class.
I think everyone understands that the "involvement of other
individuals" in the single operator class is a fundamental
change that warrants a "SO+" class . However, it appears that
individual contesters are not thinking through the ramifications
of using technology as the basis for entry classes.
73,
... Joe, W4TV
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|