This past CQ WW DX CW I've entered SOAB insted SOAB(A) which I've been
doing since 2003.
I had a blast. I must recognize it is by far more challenging, every mult
seems a lot more rewarding and I need to re-master my SO2R skills.
I'll continue to enter SOAB instead of SOAB(A) depending on the contest.
However (big however). The use of packet should be allowed for SOs as a
tool every one can opt to use.
This is an unnecessary distinction that only creates a big room for
cheating. Something that can be fixed really easy.
I don't want to re-create controversy on other ways of cheating like ghost
ops, power abuse, log massaging (this one can be eliminated pretty easy too
with real-time QSO submission done by logging software).
I'm just trying to point out that there are ways to make sure we are
creating rules that can be enforced.
Contesters are humans and humans cheat. In sports like bike racing
(specially), swimming, running, heavy lifting, etc.
To me it reached the point where world wide standings makes no sense
anymore. Because to win at a world wide level there are just a few spots
where it can be done.
So if we want to still call it a competition things need to be done not
based on number but based on quality.
Randy said that he's been instructed not change anything as long as the
number of participants keeps increasing. I gave that a bit of thought. I
don't think privileging number over quality is good for the hobby or radio
sport. It's pretty detrimental.
If young newcomers (who usually are very competitive) determine they needs
to have zillions to win, cheat and the like, he'll probably devote his time
to a different activity.
One other thing that can be done to make this a world wide event in terms
of competition (not in terms of participation, which it already is), is to
determine QSO points based on distance. Also can be done really easy.
There of course will be exceptions where the distance scoring is wrong too.
But anyways, it will be a whole lot fairer than the current scoring scheme.
Vy 73.
Martin, LU5DX
On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 10:25 AM, kd4d <kd4d@comcast.net> wrote:
> Hi Randy:
>
> No, it's not too bad! :-)
>
> SOME active single operator entries in these contests don't want to be
> required to use "assistance" to be competitive.
>
> LEAVE US CATEGORIES WHERE WE GET TO FIND QSOs AND MULTIPLIERS OURSELVES -
> without a computer doing it for us! Merging the categories would REQUIRE
> use of assistance to be competitive.
>
> 73,
>
> Mark, KD4D
>
>
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Randy Thompson K5ZD <k5zd@charter.net>
> Date:11/27/2013 12:15 AM (GMT-05:00)
> To: cq-contest@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] SO (A) in ARRL 10/160
>
> It is too bad the ARRL did not take the forward looking position and use
> this opportunity to allow all single ops to use spotting assistance. These
> contests would benefit from less categories rather than more.
>
> Randy, K5ZD
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of
> > Aldewey@aol.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2013 2:28 AM
> > To: cq-contest@contesting.com
> > Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] SO (A) in ARRL 10/160
> >
> > Actually, the ARRL PSC DID recently accept the Contest Advisory
> > Committee's recommendation to add Single Operator Unlimited Categories to
> > ARRL 10 M, ARRL 160 M, ARRL RTTY Round Up, and IARU. However, these
> > rules will not kick in until 2014. You will notice that the RTTY RU
> > rules have already been changed to accommodate this change for the
> > January, 2014 event.
> >
> > This rule change for the ARRL 10 M and he ARRL 160 M contest will kick
> > in next year.
> >
> > 73,
> >
> > Al, K0AD
> > CAC
> >
> >
> > In a message dated 11/26/2013 7:07:20 P.M. Central Standard Time,
> > ko7ss@yahoo.com writes:
> >
> > Maybe this was discussed here before, but someone needs to refresh my
> > memory, why is there no SO (A) category in the two big upcoming ARRL
> > contests ?
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|