>>but then, at least I'm willing to express that >>as opinion and not fact. -
>>AB7E.
Surely it is opinions on interpretations that need to eradicated if we are ever
to achieve clearly defined and understandable rules?
I stand by what I said in that radio contesting commenced as an audio
competition, is that not a fact? For sure sure things have evolved, lot's of
new technology introduced and I have seen nothing in these posts that are
condemning those new aids to our hobby but plenty to suggest that they should
have their own place in the entry structure..
Why should I, and other traditionalists, have to fight to preserve our
traditional single operator
status when (and I am tired of repeating this) an additional category was
granted for operators who wish to use all forms of assistance which are not
(presently) excluded by the rules? However, guys whose 'opinions' lead them to
believe that their established tool of choice is not assistance refuse to
switch categories without a fight - why is this? Surely, after several years of
increasing numbers in the 'Assisted' category, there is no longer any kudos or
admiration to be gained by remaining in the unassisted class.
I believe that my definition is absolute and leaves no room for doubt. If
information is gathered any other way than through an op's own ears via his
radio then that is assistance no matter what opinion anyone may have. That is
the intention which the rules are attempting to achieve but, as we have seen,
the nit pickers are out in numbers bitching rather than just being willing to
switch categories and put an end to these eternal debates.
Visual aids are assistance.Let us look at the two tools which you have
mentioned Dave.CW decoders - a visual aid to assist an operator to achieve an
end product he cannot reach by himself. An excellent example given by Randy of
an op running a qrg on one band whilst using a de-coder on another band to read
and line up calls and mults Or, another fine example, the op using a de-coder
in a high speed contest. We would regard that as cheating, so how can we apply
an entirely different standard to de-coder use in the CQ Contests?
Waterfalls, Panadaptors and the like. Visual aids that give an edge to users.
(1) - I lose my run freq, it takes me a while to find a hole on a busy band
whereas a glance at a screen could give me several options over the whole band
in a trice. (2) Condx are miserable, I am running 15m but there is nothing on
10mtrs, I keep checking (time lost from my runs) , the band is dead, Mults and
q's up there would boost the score. How many times have I missed brief openings
on other bands in the past? Answer put the Panadaptor on 10m and whizz
straight to a qrg when it blips rather than tuning all the way through the band
and, even were I doing it at that same, could easily miss that blip were I
higher or lower on that same band.
There could be other benefits from the above or other tools which I haven't
mentioned, or don't know about and, no doubt, many will consider my comments
as trivial rather than considering how we can help CQ Contest Committee by
accepting the spirit and intentions of any particular rule rather than examine
the strict wording looking for get outs.
We may not always agree with rules and decisions made by committe but we should
accept and comply nevertheless, that is the only way to work towards a level
playing field.
73 Brian C4Z / 5B4AIZ.
From: David Gilbert <xdavid@cis-broadband.com>
To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Sent: Sunday, 24 May 2015, 20:53
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW - Proposed rule changes.
It always amazes me how people can be so declarative about "the way it
is", and so narrowly interpretive of it, when expressing their own
personal views.
For example, if I happen to read/decode CW off a waterfall display with
no other decoding I'm pretty certain that does not put me in an assisted
category ... but then, at least I'm willing to express that as opinion
and not fact.
Dave AB7E
On 5/23/2015 9:42 PM, brian coyne wrote:
>
> -
> -
>
>
> -
>
> I am really puzzled and exasperated by this continued debate as to what
>constitutes assistance. What is there not to understand?
> Let's get back to basics. Our hobby is ham radio, radio being the operative
> word. Radio, cw or voice, is an audio mode, not in any way a visual mode, we
> detect it by hearing and information acquired in any other way is assistance
> - end of.
> If guys use any other means of gathering information, including cw decoders,
> then what is the big deal why they should not enter the 'Assisted' category?
> Beats me.
> 73 Brian C4Z / 5B4AIZ.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|