Hi Stu
Ok that is your personal desition, but rules point the limit from assisted and
not assisted
If I follow what you think, I must log with a pen and paper, with all this
tools off (SCP, history files), the software still tell me when I log a dupe
73,
Jorge
CX6VM/CW5W
Enviado desde mi iPhone
> El 23 nov. 2015, a las 23:45, Stu Phillips <stu@k6tu.net> escribió:
>
> Marc,
>
> Discussion is not meaningless and I made the same point about enforceable
> rules. Its a matter of personal philosophy.
>
> One of my friends told me he’d spent an entire evening arguing with a
> professor of philosophy at Stanford University about the “heap of sand
> paradox”.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox
>
> "A typical formulation involves a heap of sand, from which grains are
> individually removed. Under the assumption that removing a single grain does
> not turn a heap into a non-heap, the paradox is to consider what happens when
> the process is repeated enough times: is a single remaining grain still a
> heap? (Or are even no grains at all a heap?) If not, when did it change from
> a heap to a non-heap."
>
> Like the heap, at some point what is acceptable transfers into what is not.
>
> I’m just glad there is an assisted category so my conscience will remain
> clear!
>
> It’s a matter of where one personally draws the line – not about
> unenforceable rules.
> Hopefully this is now clear.
> 73’s
> Stu
>
>
> From: Marc Domen <on7ss.oo9o@gmail.com<mailto:on7ss.oo9o@gmail.com>>
> Date: Monday, November 23, 2015 at 6:34 PM
> To: Stu Phillips <stu@k6tu.net<mailto:stu@k6tu.net>>
> Cc: Contest Reflector
> <cq-contest@contesting.com<mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>>, Randy Lake
> <randyn1kwf@gmail.com<mailto:randyn1kwf@gmail.com>>
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Why SuperCheckPartial makes you assisted
>
>
> There is no way to check if anyone is using SCP.
> This discussion is meaningless.
>
> 73 Marc, ON7SD aka OO9O
>
> sent from my HTC320...
>
> Op 24 nov. 2015 03:26 schreef "Stu Phillips"
> <stu@k6tu.net<mailto:stu@k6tu.net>>:
> Randy,
>
> I didn’t suggest doing away with SCP – its a great tool.
>
> For me, its a personal choice and about the spirit of the rules, not the
> letter there of.
>
> Eliminating SCP or mandating it as assistance isn’t the solution especially
> as such a rule is pretty much unenforceable.
>
> Personal decision. Nothing more or less.
> Stu K6TU
>
> From: Randy Lake
> <randyn1kwf@gmail.com<mailto:randyn1kwf@gmail.com><mailto:randyn1kwf@gmail.com<mailto:randyn1kwf@gmail.com>>>
> Date: Monday, November 23, 2015 at 4:01 PM
> To: Stu Phillips
> <stu@k6tu.net<mailto:stu@k6tu.net><mailto:stu@k6tu.net<mailto:stu@k6tu.net>>>
> Cc:
> "CQ-Contest@contesting.com<mailto:CQ-Contest@contesting.com><mailto:CQ-Contest@contesting.com<mailto:CQ-Contest@contesting.com>>"
>
> <CQ-Contest@contesting.com<mailto:CQ-Contest@contesting.com><mailto:CQ-Contest@contesting.com<mailto:CQ-Contest@contesting.com>>>
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Why SuperCheckPartial makes you assisted
>
> I, for one, do not think that the SCP adds to assisted any more than station
> automation and the electronic dupe sheet or a second radio. It takes a bit of
> talent to utilize these. should we do away with in-log dupe checking also? We
> could all do our own SCP if we had the time and energy but yet could not put
> together expected spotted calls.
> If we are going to bark up this tree we need to do away with SCP totally
> unless we go to a cloud based database accessed via the chosen category,. ie
> you choose SO and you do not have access to the SCP (on the cloud)
> Just some thoughts.
> Randy N1KWF
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 4:14 PM, Stu Phillips
> <stu@k6tu.net<mailto:stu@k6tu.net><mailto:stu@k6tu.net<mailto:stu@k6tu.net>>>
> wrote:
>
> Posting emails likely to cause a proverbial s-storm is not my intent and
> certainly not my standard MO. but my role as the maintainer of
> SuperCheckPartial as well as a regular user of it in contests leave me
> personally in no doubt…
>
> Using Super Check Partial makes you assisted category in a contest.
>
> Before you reach for the reply key to rip me a new one, let me start with a
> couple of email snippets from a world class contester (who I respect greatly
> BTW) reinforcing why I need to release SuperCheckPartial before this coming
> weekend’s CQ WW contest.
>
> "It seems to me releasing the next SCP file a few days BEFORE CQWW CW would
> make good sense and help many operators achieve a clearer log.”
>
> And…
>
> "I hope you will reconsider since log accuracy is such an important component
> in the success or failure for everyone in this event.”
>
> Emphasis added by me to make the point although no reconsideration was
> required… I do listen to feedback FWIW.
>
> I’m sure like me you’ve had experience of using SCP to help pull a call sign
> out of a pile up/QRM/QSB because it gives you a clue for the possible things
> to listen for – of course, this can be a double edged sword as it can
> convince you HEARD what you WANTED and so make a bad QLF.
>
> How much more time do you spend verifying a call sign when it does NOT appear
> in SCP versus when it does? I know that I am doubly vigilant for a call sign
> bust both on CW and Phone when the call is NOT shown in the SCP window in my
> logger. This improves my accuracy and my rate as I’m less likely to double
> down on call sign verification.
>
> In the end adherence to the letter and spirit of contest rules comes down to
> individuals and their own decisions. When it comes to the spirit of the
> rules – not what’s written but what one personally thinks is right, that’s a
> freedom of choice that I completely endorse and respect
>
> For me going forward, I will submit my entries in the assisted category
> whenever I use Super Check Partial – its clear that it helps with accuracy
> and likely rate. Just like using cluster spots or pre-fill files (another
> set of thorn bushes I’m not going to touch).
>
> Respectfully presented & 73
>
> Stu K6TU
>
> PS: There will be a note going out shortly revising the SCP release schedule
> to accommodate the feedback I’ve received (and folks difficulty in planning
> ahead ;-).
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com<mailto:CQ-Contest@contesting.com><mailto:CQ-Contest@contesting.com<mailto:CQ-Contest@contesting.com>>
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
>
>
> --
> Randy Lake N1KWF
> 73 Gunn Rd.
> Keene,NH
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com<mailto: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
|