Nobody is saying someone can't operate unassisted if they so choose.
Scores over the years have shown it's not necessarily an advantage.
Paul, you can also log on paper and a straight key, if you'd like.
Barry W2UP
On Sun, Aug 23, 2020 at 9:04 AM Paul O'Kane <pokane@ei5di.com> wrote:
> On 23/08/2020 01:05, David Gilbert wrote:
>
> > Given a choice I generally prefer unassisted operation myself,
>
> That's my point - the "SAC folks" have unilaterally removed that choice
> - and dressed it up as "allowing for assistance in all categories". A
> fine example of doublespeak.
>
> > but that seems like a lot of umbrage
>
> Umbrage? Hardly - it's a complaint on principle, and on behalf of the
> clear majority of single-op entrants in the 2019 CW SAC contest who
> chose to operate Unassisted, who were not consulted about the change,
> and who will be denied the choice in 2020.
>
> Scandinavia: Unassisted 130, Assisted 56 - 70% unassisted.
> Non-Scandinavia: Unassisted 527, Assisted 340 - 61% unassisted.
>
> > toward the folks doing all the work
>
> That's my point. They may have been doing all the work, but they're
> proposing not to do it in future. The work includes a rigorous check of
> the logs of the leading Unassisted entrants - to verify their status.
> It seems the SAC folks (the Contest Committee) are no longer prepared to
> do this, and are thereby reneging on their responsibilities.
>
> > ... The SAC folks don't owe you (or me) anything.
>
> Really? Then let's turn it around a little. If the CQ WW or the ARRL
> DX Contest Committees unilaterally "allowed for assistance in all
> classes", would anyone still say they don't owe you (or me) anything?
> They simply wouldn't get away with it - and neither should the SAC
> Contest Committee.
>
> 73,
> Paul EI5DI
>
>
> >
> > Dave AB7E
> >
> >
> > On 8/21/2020 3:43 PM, Paul O'Kane wrote:
> >> On 21/08/2020 21:06, SM5AJV wrote:
> >>> UPDATE
> >>> After publishing the rules for SAC 2020 we have got some reactions on
> >>> allowing for assistance in all operator categories.
> >>
> >> "Allowing for assistance in all operator categories" may be true, but
> >> it is not the whole truth. What you (the SAC Committee) have done is
> >> abolish the SO Unassisted category. This benefits no one but you -
> >> the contest sponsors.
> >>
> >>> The reason behind the
> >>> change is that we want to reduce the number of operator categories and
> >>> plaques.
> >>
> >> That is nonsense. I see no evidence of a shortage of plaque donors
> >> for SO Unassisted. Again, reducing the number of operator categories
> >> benefits no one but you - the contest sponsors.
> >>
> >>> The reduction will also make the log handling and checking easier
> >>> for the log checker.
> >>
> >> That's true - but it also represents an abdication of responsibility
> >> for verifying that the leading unassisted entries actually were
> >> unassisted, for which there are long-standing and well-established
> >> techniques. Did anyone on the Committee contact the sponsors of the
> >> major contests (CQ, ARRL, IARU) to see how they do it? I suspect not.
> >>
> >>> In order to recognize operators that prefer not using any assistance we
> >>> have decided that you are able to state if you operated without any
> >>> assistance when submitting the log. Operators who participate without
> >>> assistance will be marked with (N) after the call in the ranking lists.
> >>
> >> That looks like a cop-out to me. I invite the SAC Contest Committee
> >> to address its responsibilities and reinstate SO Unassisted now -
> >> before the contests next month.
> >>
> >> 73,
> >> Paul EI5DI
> >>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|