Your definition is certainly one, but I don't think it is the most common.
The traditional sense of assistance is anything (people or technology) that
helps you find QSOs.
It would make things a lot easier if we had a universal definition for what
assistance means in the context of radiosport. Or if we could come up with
some new words and definitions that would allow us to start over without all
of the baggage.
CQ and ARRL contests have definitions. Most of the rest of the contests
have given up on the distinction. As a result, this topic has very mixed
perspectives depending on the location and age of the participant.
Enjoying the discussion.
Randy, K5ZD
> -----Original Message-----
> From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of
> Rick Kiessig
> Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2013 5:01 AM
> To: 'reflector cq-contest'
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Where to Draw the Line was: Re: Does Using
> ViewProp Make You Assisted
>
> Ultimately, the word "assistance" should have a very specific meaning:
> being helped by another live human, whether local or distant. Most of our
> shacks are full of technical devices of all kinds, which help us in
> various ways.
> To lump any of them, including multi-channel decoders, in with another
> live human is just silly. All that's going to accomplish is drive the use
> of such tools underground, and make it less and less fun for those of us
> who do follow the rules.
>
> Multi-channel decoders and the like are simply tools, and using them is
> just a different way of operating. They can just as easily turn into a
> giant waste of time and effort as be helpful. The same thing is true for
> bandscopes, SO2R, super check partial, bandmaps and even logging
> software; the list is endless. These are all just tools -- useful in some
> hands, detrimental in others -- and one op's decision to use them
> certainly doesn't interfere with anyone's choice to use a VFO and tune
> around the band that way.
>
> In addition, if you're mainly running, and rarely S&P, your use of a
> multi-channel decoder won't help you make any additional QSOs. However,
> in that case, when others spot you, those spots can play a huge part in
> making lots of QSOs *for you*, whether you claim to be "unassisted" or
> not. That so many who enter as unassisted seem to deny this basic fact
> baffles my mind.
> CW Skimmer Server and the RBN have *certainly* boosted QSOs and scores
> for many so-called unassisted ops.
>
> Personally, I want to encourage innovation and new ways of operating. I
> realize there are some who don't like change -- and that's OK; there's no
> reason why they have to use the new stuff. But to push those restrictions
> on the rest of us is counter-productive, and in fact self-defeating in
> the long run (and yes, we are pushed, there's no doubt about it). On the
> one hand, the community bemoans the lack of new and younger participants,
> while on the other, discouraging the very kinds of things that would
> attract them.
>
> If the no-assistance purists really want to compete against other
> purists, then the "unassisted" category should require a sprint-like QSY
> after every QSO to minimize the usefulness of spots to help others find
> *them* -- and "assisted" would be "everything else." If you don't want to
> benefit from using spots to find others, then you shouldn't benefit from
> others using spots to find you. I don't like that dividing line nearly as
> well as the one I proposed before (onsite vs. offsite), but it would
> still be an improvement over what we have today. (having said that, one
> advantage of a sprint-like approach is that it's relatively easy to
> enforce on the log-check side).
>
> 73, Rick ZL2HAM / ZM1G
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|