What if the title or label for "Single-Operator Assisted" were
"Single-Operator Category B"? Would it then be easier to live with the
category definition created by the contest sponsor?
SOA is just the name of an entry category. Yet, year after year, we have
these inane threads about what each of us thinks the word "assistance"
should mean. The debate is completely irrelevant. All that matters is how
the contest sponsor defines the category, regardless of the legacy name for
that category.
Ed W0YK
-----Original Message-----
From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of
Radio K0HB
Sent: 02 December, 2015 14:45
To: w2up@comcast.net
Cc: wa5rtg@gmail.com; john@kk9a.com; cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Is it time that the contest sponsors officially
identify SCP as "assisted?"
The "no code reader" rule bugs me a little bit.
It seems a departure from the "no outside source of Call/QRG" paradigm which
previously was the generally accepted definition of assistance.
Perhaps the sponsor could share their rationale for this restriction. As a
long time CW guy with failing ears...... Well, let's just say that it's a
growing crowd.
__73, de Hans, K0HB
"Just a Boy and His Radio"?
On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 2:37 PM, w2up@comcast.net <w2up@comcast.net> wrote:
> Yes, automation is on the way. Last month I drove from Denver to Vegas
and back with no foot on the pedal and no hands on the steering wheel for
1400 of the 1700 mile trip. Compared to that, automated contesting is easy!
> Barry W2UP
> Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE Smartphone
> ------ Original message------From: Stan StocktonDate: Wed, Dec 2, 2015
8:35 AMTo: john@kk9a.com;Cc: cq-contest@contesting.com;Subject:Re:
[CQ-Contest] Is it time that the contest sponsors officially identify SCP as
"assisted?"
> Making code readers cause you to be in assisted category is a stop measure
to total automation. After lunch the other day, my bother who is not a ham
and who heard nothing but talk of all this for an hour during lunch, told me
that it seemed a very small step to go from what is being done by a human to
total automation.73...Stan, K5GO/ZF2ET> On Dec 2, 2015, at 8:00 AM,
"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: 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_____________________
__________________________CQ-Contest mailing
listCQ-Contest@contesting.comhttp://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
|