Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Bell network.
Original Message
From: Dick Green WC1M
Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2015 4:20 PM
To: sawyered@earthlink.net; cq-contest@contesting.com
Reply To: wc1m73@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Preview of CQWW Rules 2015
I generally agree with what Ed is saying. I don't think SCP is assistance,
either, but unfortunately the revised rule appears to prohibit using it for
the purpose of going back and correcting a typo (I think using it before
"the QSO is complete" is still OK.) And of course, the prohibition is
completely unenforceable.
Similarly, I think it's just fine for me to print a copy of NG3K's Announced
Contest Operations list and refer to it during the contest. But now I can
only use it before the QSO is completed, not after. Not a huge deal, but an
unnecessary restriction. I think it's OK to look up the list online during
the contest, too. As long as it doesn't tell me who is actually on the air
(i.e., what I should be hearing with my ears) then it's not assistance.
I've often wondered if it's OK to monitor propagation reports on the
Internet during the contest. It certainly helps with making decisions about
which band to work, or alerting that you should take a break because a radio
blackout is in progress. Some would argue that it's OK to get the info from
WWV, but not the Internet. Some might argue that it's a form of assistance
either way. Me, I think it should be OK to get the information any way you
can because I like the idea of training all radio operators to understand
and exploit propagation. And the information doesn't tell me who is on the
air. It's not quite in the assistance category of my wife bringing me a
sandwich, but it's close.
I'm not wild about the concept of "Overlay" categories, either. If the
Classic category proves popular, let's make it a unique category. Let's call
it SO1R and the current Unassisted category SO2R. And let's separate "one
boy and his radio" from "24-hours". If the stats are showing that Classic
hasn't decreased total hours of participation, then let's have a 24-hour
option for all the major categories (not Single Band). That way, more people
can operate competitively rather than casually, regardless of the category,
and can still operate as much as they can or want. I suspect there are ops
out there who would love to do a 24-hour SO2R contest and others who would
love to do a 48-hour SO1R contest. Yeah, it gets a little crazy in terms of
published results, but online pages are a lot cheaper than printed pages.
Certificates should be self-generated these days, not mailed, and if you
want an unsponsored plaque you can buy one.
73, Dick WC1M
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ed Sawyer [mailto:sawyered@earthlink.net]
> Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2015 3:11 AM
> To: cq-contest@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Preview of CQWW Rules 2015
>
> A few points on the rules discussion:
>
>
>
> People really have the SCP jumbled - incorrectly - with assistance. SCP
is a
> database of calls that have entered a log in the contest. That's all.
> When YOU as the operator, start typing in letters to form a callsign, you
start
> seeing possible combinations appearing that are helpful for YOU, the
> operator, to make a decision as to whether you are hearing one of the
> options in front of you or not. SCP in no way "provides the callsign".
In fact,
> as anyone who has competitively contested and used SCP as a tool knows, it
> is often wrong for you to not trust your ears for a unique not on the
database
> vs change it to a close one. Skimmer, RBN, packet spots, and cluster
literally
> provide you with the call. SCP provides you with 40,000 calls. Its up to
you to
> decide if the signal you are hearing is even one of those calls. If the
rules
> committees want to kill database tools, fine, but just say database tools
are
> not allowed and be done with it.
>
>
>
> Why would there be any debate that a CW decoder used for any purpose
> (competitively, skill set enhancement, or due to disability) is not
assistance.
> Of course it is. And its not discriminatory to someone actually needing
it nor
> to newbies needing code enhancement to say "we have provided a class for
> you to compete in - enjoy". How is that any different than providing
cluster
> and RBN spots to stations that need this assistance to keep their interest
up?
> "enjoy".
>
>
>
> There is a big difference between single radio limited time and equipment
> "boy and his radio" vs those of that enjoy top level competitive
contesting
> without having spots feed to us by machines and operators all over the
> world. Classic is a great boy and his radio category. It's a shame that
people
> are allowed to "win it" that are not actually restricted from other
categories.
> I don't think that was the intent.
>
>
>
> One last point, it would be interesting to see whether a clean top scoring
> operation would even require the attention of the reviewers at the end of
> the day. I have a difficult time seeing it possible to do many of the
things
> TO7A was flagged at all, without cheating. There are great baselines out
> there of winning operations that are very closely mirrored by numerous
> other operators producing very similar patterns and results. Look at the
logs,
> its obvious. It would seem to me that a performance that is within those
> competitive lines, barring some other reason for suspicion, would be just
> accepted as reasonable. It's the logs that fit a cheating pattern and
that
> produce results way outside the norms of past winners that will, and
should,
> require a next level of scrutiny. If you plan to submit one of those
logs, looks
> like you better be ready to defend yourself. And that isn't a bad thing,
in my
> opinion.
>
>
>
> 73
>
>
>
> Ed N1UR
>
_______________________________________________
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
|