Ham radio is the technical sport/hobby. Uses gadgets, equipment, radios,
computers, antennas.....
Why is it so difficult to consider ASSISTANCE by other person, operator,
human being???
We should be free to apply technology in OUR SHACK as part of the
equipment.
Our own antennas (within QTH definition), radios, computers, gadgets,
software are part of our station and whatever they do is part of our
effort/equipment. Skimmer using our antennas at our location is part of
equipment.
Assistance by another operator, human being, or equipment outside of our
station (via internet or whatever) remote receivers, would be ASSISTANCE
and put operator/entry in ASSISTED category.
This classification would clear the ambiguity in the "ASSISTED problem"
and promote use of technology in our shack and separate the assistance
from the outside, which is the real delimiter.
Otherwise where do you stop at the assistance? Internet, keyers,
computers, logging programs,....???
Skimmers used at one's station would minimize the crazy pileups via
internet skimmers. Why are we using internet and reverse beacons
anyway? The art of hunting is diminished to hunting in the ZOO!
Just like DXCC was destroyed with NETS and LISTS, the contesting is
being destroyed by weird logic and gadgets being considered
"assistants".
Just my two koppeckes. Frankly, I am being turned off from my second
love of contesting, just like lists and nets poisoned my love of DXing.
Can we use some logic??? What's next? Looking out of window for storm
clouds is assistance???
73 de OF Yuri, K3BU.us
www.MVmanor.com
On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 12:17 PM, Randy Thompson K5ZD wrote:
> 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
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|