Mark,
We have anything goes now. Whatever goes. If you have the money build
the biggest station in the world and compete against people with dipoles
and single radios who are on limited incomes or they have lower paying
jobs. Anything goes as long as you can afford it? It is the only
"sport" that I know of that does not have limits to the classes.
Sailing, car racing all allow you to spend whatever you want but the
boat or car must be built to a detailed specification. Yes, there are
probably a few unlimited classes for the very wealthy and they compete
among themselves.
The internet is an option just like SO2R, just like multiple towers,
antennas and radios. Nobody is forcing the internet on you, anymore
that you were forced to use SO2R or multiple antennas.
W0MU
On 4/17/2017 7:05 AM, MARK BAILEY wrote:
Hi Rich:
I do not agree that forcing everyone who wants to compete onto the internet ("nail
in the coffin for the single operator categories") is the right answer - I think we
should retain single-operator categories.
Clearly, the assisted and multi-operator categories will continue to move more
and more on to the internet (self-spotting, social media, etc.). There should
continue to be single operator categories for the luddites like me who want the
option to play on the radio - and these categories should prohibit
self-spotting.
There may be cheating that cannot be detected, similar to the situation with power
cheating and remote receivers, but that is not a sufficient reason to eliminate
categories. Otherwise, we end up with a single category: "anything goes".
73,
Mark, KD4D
On April 17, 2017 at 6:55 AM Rich Assarabowski <konecc@snet.net> wrote:
This just appeared on CQ WW
http://cqww.com/blog/cqww-2016-ssb-self-spotting-and-entrant-audio-recording
s/ . I know the intimate details of two situations from the last CQWW
where genuine friends, unrelated to the contest effort and with NO
communication with the contest operation were trying to help out and spot
their buddies, resulting in DQ letters to the contest operation. The
explanation below by KR2Q clarifies the definition of self-spotting.
To me the logic of self-spotting as defined by KR2Q is completely flawed.
It basically says that it's OK to spot a friend but not too fast, not too
often, and never when you hear his rate dropping. The assumption made
that frequent and fast spotting "indicate linkage to the mother station" is
absurd. These rules now open up the opportunity that if you don't like
someone, just spot him a few times (and no one else) and they will
automatically get DQ'ed.
It's finally time for a rules change - allow self-spotting. One way is to
have logging software send out automatic spots of yourself based on a
commonly agreed upon algorithm, e.g. every X minutes, every new QSY, etc.
The issue here is what to do about single-ops who are not connected to the
internet and those in locations without internet service. This could be
the "nail in the coffin" for the single-op category with no Internet
connection and penalizes those operations who do not have Internet service.
Incidentally, the T48K operation got DQ'ed for self-spotting and they did
NOT have Internet service in Cuba. Ask K1XX, K1EP and K1MM about that one
;)
--- Rich K1CC
_______________________________________________
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
|