Kelly,
Anyone who thinks using the RBN or packet spots is an inherent detriment to a
single operator is badly mistaken. If assisted scores are not at the level of
non assisted it simply means that most of the best operators choose to operate
without a computer telling them where everyone is located on the band. If
someone asks the question who won the contest with no other information, it
would be assumed by most to mean who won the single operator all band high
power category and it so happens that most, not all, of the best operators
choose that category.
Now, if someone doesn't have the sense to use the assistance to their benefit
and chooses instead to use one radio and spend most of their time clicking and
pressing F4 instead, they can hurt their score as a result, but those who would
do that are either not serious or are not the best operators.
The serious SO2R guys who would normally tune the second radio looking for
people to work on another band, especially new multipliers, can just click and
work them one after the other on the second radio while running on Radio 1
using packet with RBN on CW.
Surely you or no one else believes that it would be to their advantage to tune
that second radio instead of having the computer line up in a row all the ones
they want to work.
73...Stan, K5GO
Sent from my iPad
> On Nov 17, 2014, at 9:25 AM, Kelly Taylor <ve4xt@mymts.net> wrote:
>
> If cheating on packet/cluster/RBN was such a benefit, wouldn't the assisted
> classes outperform the unassisted, rather than the other way around? If the
> guys who are honest about assistance can't beat the unassisted, how could a
> cheater?
>
> And if that's the case, and I believe it is, then what's the benefit to
> getting knickers in a knot over whether a guy who's not going to win anyway
> tries to delude himself into thinking he's really pulling one over on us?
>
> Meanwhile, why not worry about the guys for whom an Alpha 9500 is just an
> exciter? We don't really believe every single one of those 599 500 or 599
> 400 reports in ARRL DX, do we?
>
> Yet, power levels never get anywhere near the level of hand-wringing ‹
> despite actually being an infraction of actual laws in most countries ‹
> compared to the overwhelming dread someone might be looking at an Internet
> site they're not supposed to?
>
> 73, kelly
> ve4xt
>
>> On 11/17/14 5:45 AM, "kr2q@optimum.net" <kr2q@optimum.net> wrote:
>>
>> Dave, G4BUO said:
>> So Doug, by the same logic do you believe ARRL and perhaps other contest
>> sponsors should remove the distinction between single and multi-op since
>> it is hard for the checkers to tell the difference?
>>
>> Dave,
>> In my original post, I also pointed out how contest sponsors retain separate
>> categories for the
>> various power levels, even though they cannot actually verify that with 100%
>> (or >x% percent?)
>> of accuracy. So I "get" (already got) what you are saying.
>>
>> However, this is really up to the entrants (IMHO). Does it make sense to
>> have
>> categories that
>> the contest sponsors cannot verify?
>>
>> If the contest community is willing to accept that there are, in fact,
>> cheaters in the world AND
>> that contest sponsors cannot always find them AND that the published results
>> may not be a
>> true reflection of reality, then sure, keep the all of the categories
>> separate.
>>
>> But if an entrant is counting on the sponsors being able to keep all
>> categories "pure," then
>> the entrant is only fooling him/her self.
>>
>> In published surveys, it seems that EU is in favor of allowing spotting
>> assistance for SOAB
>> (nice way of saying, no more distinction). But the majority of USA feels
>> exactly the opposite.
>>
>> Checking for unclaimed spotting assistance is a huge burden on the sponsors
>> (if they check
>> at all). If sponsors did not have to do such checking, my best guess is that
>> the final results
>> could easily be published in <30 days....possibly even < 14 days.
>>
>> Consider the contest sponsor. What is their ethical obligation to the
>> entrants when they
>> publish "the results?" If the understanding is, "This is the best we could
>> do
>> and we know
>> that there are cheaters in here that for whom we could not adequately
>> demonstrate category drift,"
>> and the contest community is willing to accept that, then the status quo is
>> fine.
>>
>> In closing, these are simply my thoughts on the topic; nothing here is
>> gospel.
>>
>> If you'd like to continue the discussion, I suggest that we take it off line.
>>
>> de Doug KR2Q
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
|