CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] Is it time that the contest sponsors officially identif

To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Is it time that the contest sponsors officially identify SCP as "assisted?"
From: VE2TZT <ve2tzt@arrl.net>
Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2015 13:48:36 -0500
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
>Where does this end?
It is what I already wrote :
Those guys will be satisfied when non assisted will mean only radios with tubes and paper log. The Idea is to go back the 60's.

Gilles VA2EW



On 02/12/2015 08:00, john@kk9a.com wrote:
Until recently I thought that assisted meant getting outside assistance to
find stations, typically multipliers. Skimmer made this more complicated
as it really is not anyone else helping you find stations. Then the
committee changed the rules to include code readers as assisted. Certainly
logging software and computer generated CW are also some type of
assistance or why would we use them. There would be no way to run on two
bands simultaneously using a keyer and pad of paper.  Where does this end?

John KK9A


To:     cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject:        [CQ-Contest] Is it time that the contest sponsors officially
identify SCP as "assisted?"
From:   kr2q@optimum.net
Date:   Mon, 30 Nov 2015 23:26:40 +0000 (GMT)
List-post:      <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
Yes, the sponsors (or their committees) make the rules and the definitions.

In CQWW and other contests, use of a database to alter calls is not
allowed...post contest.

There can be zero doubt that using SCP is using a database assembled by
others.
Is there really a difference in changing a callsign during the contest via
use
of a db as
compared to changing it after the contest via a database?  Think about it.

Please focus on the "database" aspect rather than the timing aspect.

If CQWW can recognize use of a CW decoder (any type, not just skimmer
type) as
assisted,
then why not recognize use of SCP as assisted?

For me (IMHO), use of SCP is far more "assisted" than use of a cw decoder.

If SCP partial is not helping you "copy" the callsign, then why use it?
Would
you be happy
to operate without it?  If yes, then say so.  If no, say so...and please
clarify why not.

This is an old tune for me.  See my NCJ article from May 1996, which covers
many topics,
including SCP.  Don't have it available?  Write me and I'll send you a copy.

Some things never change....or can they?

Usual disclaimer about my opinion versus my membership on the CQWWCC.

de Doug KR2Q

_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>