At this point why even separate single or multi op, even multi single can
have two stations? After all people cheat with additional operators in
single op categories (contest committee some years ago DQed one or two for
exactly that.)
This way everyone is on a level playing field, because that is what
competition is about...
/sarcasm
I'm thoroughly opposed to assisted and non assisted being merged. I compete
in either category for various reasons, chief among them being that
unassisted favors running and I like to run.
I also don't see a waterfall as being "assistance." I thought skimmer was
bad enough classified as assisted (because it's your own radio) but since
it provided a "cluster like" experience, it sort of made sense but a
waterfall tells you nothing other than a signal exists there, and honestly
- on a contest weekend with wall to wall signals - is that going to tell
you anything that's not fairly obvious?
Then again I always got the sense that there was a movement to destroy the
unassisted category for whatever reason. I guess the end will justify the
means. And no, I don't buy into the "people cheat so we need to fix it so
they don't" because you stop one way of cheating another one opens up.
I hesitate to say this as I've always been a critic of this sort of
thinking but we really need to lighten up a bit, "it's just a hobby."
Ria
N2RJ
On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 10:53 AM Yuri <ve3dz@rigexpert.net> wrote:
> Agree with Randy, Barry and Martin.
> Should be SO and MO (1, or M TX). And no power category separation, which
> is a real joke now...
> Mandatory audio recording for top scores...
> No matter, you like it or not. It's inevitable. Like using cellphone or
> computer.
> Like N2IC said, The law of unintended consequences...
> Please remember that Randy was CQ WW Contest director for many years (and
> the most successful one IMO) in addition to being a top notch contester and
> he speaks from his experience.
> I personally value his opinion more than the ones of some other guys who
> are doing more "contesting" on this reflector rather than in the air.
>
> Yuri VE3DZ
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of
> Martin Monsalvo - LU5DX
> Sent: Friday, March 10, 2017 5:08 AM
> To: Randy Thompson K5ZD
> Cc: CQ-Contest
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] what is required of recevied audio, and whay
>
> +1
> 73,
>
> Martin LU5DX
>
> Enviado desde BlueMail
>
> En mar 9, 2017 10:43 p. m., en 10:43 p. m., Randy Thompson K5ZD <
> k5zd@charter.net> escribió:
> >You are right. We should fold the unassisted category into assisted so
> >everyone can compete on a level playing field...
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf
> >Of
> >> Steve London
> >> Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2017 7:07 PM
> >> To: cq-contest@contesting.com
> >> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] what is required of recevied audio, and
> >whay
> >>
> >> I agree with Ed - it was a terrible decision to allow panadapters and
> >> waterfalls in the unassisted category. It was obvious to me that it
> >> wouldn't take long for bandmaps to be merged with these displays,
> >making
> >> unassisted and assisted indistinguishable to the adjudicators, even
> >with
> >> a recording. The law of unintended consequences.
> >>
> >> 73,
> >> Steve, N2IC
> >>
> >>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|