N0AX responded to K0RC:
> > Ron is correct. If the contesting community cannot agree what "Assisted"
> > means, it's fruitless to try to fabricate contest rules. (Sorry Randy)
> > This
> > term needs to be defined first, then the rest will fall into place. And I
> > don't think the contesting community can define it for the contest
> > sponsors
> > (Sorry again Randy). The definition/clarification needs to come from the
> > sponsors themselves.
>
>I've got a better idea - how about we get **RID** of the word "assisted"
>entirely? It is far too vague to be of any use when we are really talking
>about sources and movement of information.
Talk about treating the symptom rather than the disease...
How does the definition change if the label changes? What is
different if you call it "Single Op Ralph"?
Nothing - absolutely nothing.
Changing the words will not help when so many seemingly
cannot understand simple written English - and if that
obliviousness extends to contest directors & advisory
committee members, then we are in real trouble.
The rules of the major events - with the exception of
what K6AW did & now K5ZD has done to WPX & those
that only list certain types of alerting assistance as
opposed to talking about alerting assistance in general
(like IARU) - are quite clear: single ops are to do all the
operating functions & use of any alerting assistance like
skimming makes them SOA as spotting is one of those
functions.
73, VR2/KBrett7Graham/p.
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|