VO1HE engaged VR2BG, commenting on NQ3X engaging W5OV:
> > > > <snip CQ WW rule that defines SO & SOA>
> > > >
> > > > <snip W5OV's questioning how "any kind" of
> > > > assistance implies an exception for a new kind of
> > > > assistance such as skimming>
> > >
> > >First, your whole argument rides on the assumption that Skimmer is
> > >always defined as "Dx alerting assistance", which is not
> > self-evident;
> > >that's one of the things this debate is trying to hammer out.
> >
> > What else could skimming be then? It tells the operator
> > about stations found & where they are. It duplicates a part
> > of operating a contest that has clearly been defined as
> > something the operator is to do.
>
>To me, this is the crux of the matter. Nowhere in any rule that I have ever
>read does it state that CW MUST be copied by ear. As far as I'm concerned,
>"DX Alerting Assistance" has always been equated to "help from someone else
>who is providing information to you". The line blurs when technology is
>drawn into the "assistance" mix. I agree with Joe W4TV completely when he
>asserts that if you focus on one piece of technology that improves the
>facilitation of radio communications, you should focus on them all.
The rule clearly defines which functions are expected to be
done by the operator. Spotting is one of them. If I may, nowhere
does it say that the DX alerting assistance that makes SO into
SOA must come from _another_ operator, so how can DX alerting
assistance to an operator (regardless of where it comes from) not
be considered a form of DX alerting assistance?
>I feel that the main problem arose when the cluster networks were first
>integrated into contest rules. The use of extraneous DX information of any
>kind, being received from sources outside your local control, should have
>been considered as a "Multi-op" operation in all cases and the "Assisted"
>category should never have been born. It makes perfect sense that way. If
>you get help or information from another operator, you are "multi-op".
>Simple. Why it happened the way it did I can only surmise but it was wrong
>as far as I'm concerned. The fact that certain contests call cluster use
>"assistance" while others call it "multi-op" tends to back up my point.
>Single-op is when one person does all the operating using whatever localized
>technology (filters, keyers, loggers, skimmers, antennae, radios, etc) that
>is at his disposal. Multi-op is when more than one person contributes
>(either directly or by providing useful information) to the operation (this
>doesn't mean making lunch either) of the station. Calling any new piece of
>technology "assistance" opens the door to review the roles of all
>technology.
Single-op assisted came about because there was & still is a
significant difference between more than operator doing the
operating (and no restriction on use of DX alerting assistance)
compared to one operator doing all the operating with some form
of DX alerting assistance. Starting with one operator doing all
48 hours himself as opposed to several operators taking shifts.
Before single-op assisted, single-op with DX alerting assistance
(in those days, the local 2m DX repeater or some net on a
simplex frequency) made you multi-op. SOA is a category that
those who sacrificed themselves to being multi-op for the good
of their club score can now compete amongst themselves in
the level-as-we-will-ever-have-it playing field based on the basic
distinctions we have (operating functions done solo or with one
specific form of assistance or by many, number of transmitters
& power).
> ><snip both W5OV & NQ3X, here VO1HE is responding>
> >to VR2BG's point>
>
> > What the assistance comes from does not matter - the
> > assistance, if it has to do with operating, logging or
> > spotting, makes a single-op a single-op no more.
>
>Sure it does. Try copying CW (or SSB for that matter) without a speaker in
>your radio. Does that device make you "assisted"? Try copying RTTY or PSK31
>by ear. Without a computer, it is just noise so does that device constitute
>assistance simply because it aids "the operator" in the decoding of a radio
>signal? Once again, the term "assistance" should never have entered the
>picture at all.
The category is called "single-op", defined as the operator doing
all the operating, logging & spotting functions. The word
"assistance" is only used in a sentence that deals with the
spotting function: "the use of DX alerting assistance of any kind"
moves you into a category called "single-op assisted". Not only
are your examples here naff, they follow from trying to take a word
from the label for a defined term & using it to change the definition
of the term. Speakers or whatever you decode digital modes with
do not provide DX alerting assistance, they are equipment without
which any operation is not possible - continuing, a radio is also
assistance, which works with the assistance of electricity, etc.
> > ><snip NQ3X also reading a word from the name of a defined
> > >term into the definition itself>
> > >
> > Here we go again - with all the solicitors about, one would
> > think they would get definitions right. "Single-op" &
> > "Single-op assisted" are terms, defined in the rules. You
> > don't get to go to the label for the term & interpret what
> > the term means from the words that comprise the label when
> > you don't like or don't understand the definition.
> >
> > Everyone dissecting the term like this reminds me of 4O3A &
> > his defective reasoning as to why he needn't send a report as
> > part of the WPX exchange, despite it being pretty clear from
> > the rules that this is what is to be done.
> >
> > Single-op is single-op - the operator is to do all of some
> > specifically defined functions. For those who choose not to
> > do this, there has been for some time a category for you that
> > is separate from multi-op, which is what you otherwise would be.
>
>How does Skimmer change this? If the Skimmer is not networked and only
>decodes signals heard at the operator's location using equipment that the
>operator installs and maintains and the operator is provided no external (to
>his location) information, why is a visual representation of the signal
>being received any different from an audio representation? The operator
>still has to read the screen, tune to the signal, verify the callsign and
>make the contact. Who helped him do that? Again, there should never have
>been an "assisted" category.
Because skimming replicates the spotting function of operating
& if the operator doesn't do all the spotting then by definition
that operator's category becomes single-op assisted. The use
of DX alerting assistance of any kind takes a single-op into the
single-op assisted category.
><NQ3X's suggestion of a fear held by single-ops against
>single-ops with DX alerting assistance of any kind being
>considered as other than single-op assisted previously
>snipped>
>
> > It's that simple. If there is a fear, as NQ3X later suggests
> > is why some say skimming is not for single-ops, it is that
> > radiosport is now full of folks who don't want to play by the
> > rules & justify this with some rather ridiculous logic.
>
>I don't think that's the case at all. This has nothing to do with cheating
>but rather how to integrate a new technology into radiosport so that it
>benefits everyone rather than a select few or no one. If the rules stated
>definitively how to deal with such new technology and what it brought to the
>table, then most people would abide by that. You will never eliminate
>cheating so that's a fool's errand but I think you'd find that there are but
>a very few who set out to break any rules that have been well documented and
>clarified.
You appear to be pro-DX-alerting-assistance-of-any-kind-being-used-
by-single-ops, so perhaps you are not in a position to say what the
fears of single-ops-without-DX-alerting-assistance-of-any-kind are.
By basing your argument on interpreting a defined term by reading
the label for the term into its definition - instead of taking the
definition as it is defined - you are right down there with 4O3A in
doing exactly what is feared: unless one is right there at the bottom,
there is always a need to somehow rationalize doing something that
isn't allowed. Okay, that might be a little harsh: your logic is as
defective as 4O3A's was, with so many seemingly seeing things the
same way, cheating (all cheating) in radiosport may instead be even
more widespread than even I thought.
>One way to defend against those who claim SO when they use the cluster,
>however, is to eliminate the "Assisted" category altogether and allow
>cluster/skimmer use for all categories. Leave it up to the operator as to
>whether or not they want to avail of it. There is no way to completely
>determine if the cluster is being used by those claiming "single-op" status
>but, by allowing the cluster for all categories, no one would be able to
>falsely claim they never used it.
Yes, let's get rid of single-op assisted & go back to what it was
before: multi-op. Single-op is single-op, doing the basic functions
of operating as defined. With no DX alerting assistance of any kind,
single-op can also be kept that way as the use of DX alerting
assistance can be detected. SOA I think has a place though,
no need to make those guys back into martyrs again.
>This debate stems from the rules not keeping up with technological changes.
>Moreover, I think there are several facets at play here. One is from the
>purists who believe that CW should only be copied by ear and, as has been
>reported, this was not the case as code readers have been used since morse
>code was invented. Another results from, as I repeatedly stated above, my
>belief that they got it wrong when they called cluster use "assistance" and
>created a new category instead of calling it "multi-op" to define that the
>help was received from other persons, which was the actual case.
This has nothing to do with copy-by-ear, it is about the operator
in the single-op category doing all the operating. We now have
the ability to automate a portion of what the operator by definition
has to do himself & in today's ethics/morals-deficit world, we have
folks using very defective logic to twist definitions & now to even
forget the past & why we even have a single-op assisted category
to begin with. Why can't you lot just follow the bloody rules?
>Perhaps it's a good thing that they aren't jumping to make knee-jerk rules
>these days but, eventually, they will have to address these new technologies
>in order to clarify their roles in radiosport otherwise this debate will
>rage on forever.
If the technology, unlike skimming that replicates a defined function
that is to be done by the operator, does not replicate a defined
function that is to be done by the operator, then there is nothing to
address.
As long as we have rules & folks go around saying that the rules
do not mean what they say, then for the sake of radiosporting,
somebody is going to speak up. This debate has nothing to do
with technology, it's simply about following the rules.
And the rules (CQ WW at least) are quite clear - a skimming
single-op belongs in the category called single-op assisted, as
skimming clearly fits the definition of "DX alerting assistance of
any kind". Skimming, like any other form of DX alerting
assistance, has always been fair game for multi-ops.
If you are so convinced that the rules need to change, then
how about debating why & how to change them, rather than
advocating not following the rules as they currently are?
73, VR2/KBrett7Graham/p.
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|