Joe,
OK, but you are not listening, just reading a monitor.
Maybe all the contest community like to go on this direction.
I don´t like this modes, maybe this is the reason I never felt motivated to
do RTTY? :-)
73,
Jorge
CX6VM/CW5W
-----Mensaje original-----
De: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
[mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] En nombre de Joe Subich, W4TV
Enviado el: Viernes, 17 de Septiembre de 2010 04:22 p.m.
Para: Jorge Diez - CX6VM
CC: cq-contest@contesting.com
Asunto: Re: [CQ-Contest] The Meaning of Assisted
Jorge,
> You are not finding the mults by yourself.
> You are reading where the stations are, then QSY there and call them.
But no other *person* is finding them for you.
Your argument could be used to prevent the use of history files and
SCP ... you are not copying the exchange for yourself ... they are
being furnished to you therefor you are receiving "help."
This is my point about technology ... one can not draw a line between
the technology he uses and the technology another person uses it is
simply unfair to do so.
73,
... Joe, W4TV
On 9/17/2010 2:59 PM, Jorge Diez - CX6VM wrote:
> Joe,
>
> You are not finding the mults by yourself.
> You are reading where the stations are, then QSY there and call them.
> So in my opinion you are receiving an extra help.
>
> 73,
> Jorge
> CX6VM/CW5W
>
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] En nombre de Joe Subich, W4TV
> Enviado el: Viernes, 17 de Septiembre de 2010 03:34 p.m.
> Para: cq-contest@contesting.com
> Asunto: Re: [CQ-Contest] The Meaning of Assisted
>
>
> Paul,
>
> > It is worth repeating, because it is true: "There is
> > general agreement that the use of skimmer puts us in
> > the Unlimited (Assisted) category."
>
> Regardless of what you say, it is *not true* that there is
> *general agreement*. ARRL and the CQWW Contest Committee
> may have codified *their view* into the rules for their
> contests. That's fine as it protects the interests of the
> entrenched group of elite/master operators who regularly
> appear in the top 10 boxes and at the top of their respective
> section/state/country listings. Those who disagree with the
> dictates of the sponsors - and new hams who do not have an
> anti-technology bias or a misunderstanding of history - will
> vote with their logs and not enter the contests that stifle
> technological experimentation.
>
> However, the current Luddite-inspired rules *do not* mean
> that there is *general agreement* that the position of those
> two sponsoring organizations are right any more than their
> acceptance of SO2R means their position on that technology
> is right in the eyes of many amateurs.
>
> Quite simply, attempting to pick and choose among technologies
> to decide which technology belongs in which class is *wrong*.
> Get back to the criteria "does it involve another person in
> making or facilitating QSOs" and "is the equipment and antennas
> used located within the prescribed boundaries of the station."
>
> If you want a contest of pure operator skill, define a class
> that limits the entrant to a single 100 W transceiver with a
> single receiver and antennas no more than 1/4 wave tall or
> longer than 1/2 wave and no more than 50 feet/15 meters above
> ground at their highest point. Once you move beyond that point
> technology enters the equation and the situation becomes one
> not of operator skill but choosing the appropriate technology
> for maximum advantage or limiting the choice of technology to
> maximally disadvantage other entrants.
>
> 73,
>
> ... Joe, W4TV
>
>
> On 9/17/2010 11:39 AM, Paul O'Kane wrote:
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Joe Subich, W4TV"<lists@subich.com>
>>
>>> No, there is not "general agreement" that the use of
>>> skimmer (when located within one's own station) should
>>> put the operator in the unlimited category any more
>>> than there is general agreement that the use of other
>>> enhanced technology should not put one in the unlimited
>>> category.
>>
>>
>> Not true!
>>
>>
>> 1. From the "General Rules for ARRL Contests Below 30 MHz"
>> www.arrl.org/general-rules-for-arrl-contests-below-30-mhz
>>
>> 2.1.1. Use of ... multi-channel decoders such as
>> CW Skimmer, etc) is not permitted.
>>
>>
>> 2. From the CQWW 2010 Rules www.cqww.com/CQWW-Rules-2010.pdf
>>
>> A. Single Operator categories: ..... QSO alerting
>> assistance of any kind (this includes, but is not
>> limited to, packet, local or remote Skimmer and/or
>> Skimmer-like technology, Internet) places the entrant
>> in the Single Operator Assisted category.
>>
>>
>> 3. From the CQ WPX Rules 2010 www.cqwpx.com/rules.htm
>>
>> (e) Use of QSO alerting assistance is limited to the
>> Single Operator Assisted and Multi-Operator categories.
>> QSO alerting assistance ... includes, but is not limited
>> to ... local or remote call and frequency decoding
>> technology (e.g., Skimmer)...
>>
>>
>> 4. IOTA Contest 2010 www.rsgbcc.org/hf/rules/2010/riota.shtml
>>
>> 4.2 Operators:
>> . Single operator QSO alerting assistance of any kind
>> (this includes, but is no limited to, packet, local or
>> remote Skimmer and/or Skimmer-like technology, Internet)
>> places the entrant in the Single-operator Assisted
>> category
>>
>>
>> It is worth repeating, because it is true: "There is
>> general agreement that the use of skimmer puts us in
>> the Unlimited (Assisted) category."
>>
>> 73,
>> Paul EI5DI
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|