This topic has been beaten to death on every ham reflector I belong
too...However, it is a discussion that should continue, because I think NA
contest sponsors are behind the proverbial 8 ball on this issue...
I've proven to myself, along with many others I've spoken with, that in an
all-out effort to try and place in the top-10 of any contest, LEAVE THE
TELNET OFF!!...It's a distraction and harms serious efforts...Most people
spend way too much time trying to bust Packet-Pileups, and not enough time
running...Don't believe me ? Take a look at most contest winners and see
what category they are in (assuming they correctly reported their real
category)...Not always, but many times...
However, Telnet/Packet is still a GOOD thing...
For one thing, it promotes activity in the contest by advertising juicy DX,
or rare mults, whatever...Gets more people on...That's good...
Some ops (possibly many, maybe most) enjoy Telnet/Packet (myself
included)...It sometimes makes an otherwise slow/boring contest FUN for
casual ops...Again, gets more people on...That's good...
IMO, forcing ASSISTED ops into the MULTI category only DIScourages
participation and ENcourages cheating...To my knowledge, only the ARRL RU,
ARRL 10 meter and RAC contests still force Telnet users into MULTI
categories...I can't think of one EU sponsored contest that doesn't allow
Telnet in all categories now...They have it RIGHT, in that they have
recognized that Telnet is a "here-to-stay, fact-of-life" in the world of
radiosport...I can agree with an ASSISTED category, but not MULTI-OP
status...
CQ has hit the nail square on the head, with their Tri-bander/Wires
class...Now THAT makes a difference...
73, Scott VE1OP
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Preston" <jpreston1@cox.net>
To: <rtty@contesting.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 1:14 PM
Subject: Re: [RTTY] ARRL RTTY Round-Up Rules - QUESTIONs about band
changes,etc.
> The category would be SO Assisted (or Unlimited), not just SO. Since it
> would be a separate category, it would not be in competition with SO. If
> ALL single-ops were allowed to use packet (not as a separate category),
> that would be a different matter. I feel that it should definitely be a
> separate category.
>
> 73,
>
> Jim N6VH
>
>
> Bill Turner wrote:
>
>> At 08:59 PM 12/13/2005, Mike wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>My feelings as well, Jim. I would like it to go further and allow
>>>packet in any of the SO classes.
>>
>>
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>> This has been beat nearly to death, but I see it's still twitching.
>>
>> The essence is "If another ham else is feeding you spots, how can
>> that possibly be "single operator"?
>>
>> 'Splain yourself, Lucy. :-)
>>
>> 73, Bill W6WRT
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> RTTY mailing list
>> RTTY@contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
|