eHam Logo

 Home Home
 Articles & Stories
 Contesting Wiki
 My Profile

 This Week's Contests
 Classified Ads
 Contest Links
 Product Reviews

Contest Lists

Other Lists

 Mailing List FAQs

Site Information
 About This Site Team

Contesting Online Survey

Survey Question Current Survey Question

Recently the RDXC committee reclassified P3F to high power from low power without publicly providing strong evidence that any infraction had occurred. They concluded was that the contestant was running HP on 80/40m but not full-time, just 10 minutes here and there without any convincing evidence. It appears they used the RBN as their source of information. Should the RXDC contest have to publicly provide convincing evidence before reclassifying a station from LP to HP?

Recent Surveys

Randy, K5ZD, wrote a sidebar titled " Convergence and Change" in the 2015 CQWW CW printed results in CQ magazine. He wrote that the "convergence of personal computers, Internet access, DX clusters, and CW Skimmer have changed the nature of CW contesting". He goes to say that it is "more difficult to police the line between the single operator working alone and those who are using the assistance of DX spotting." In light of this convergence and change is it time to recombine SO and SOA into a single category?

What's your primary Software for HF Contests ? ( no VHF/UHF ! )

Are you ready the this year's winter contest season

What ways have you found to be effective to attract newcomers to our hobby?

What is your linear?

View All Survey Questions

Have a good idea for a Contesting Online Survey question?
Enter your idea!

If during a contest QSO the other station gives you the frequency of a needed multiple should you be required to enter the 'assisted' category even though until then you operated 'unassisted'?
  Posted: Jan 01, 2007   (322 votes, 10 comments) by VE5ZX

  Don't know
  Don't care
    (322 votes, 10 comments)
Survey Results
Yes 19% (61)
No 66% (214)
Don't know 7% (21)
Don't care 8% (26)

Survey Comments
no force, no foul
When receiving information like this, a single op is not required to QSY, so they should not have to enter as assisted.

IF the op shows a pattern of repeated band changes to work the same station, then it should be questioned. But if the same stations are worked on different bands at various times during the contest, then no foul I say.

Posted by w5reo on January 28, 2007

Common Sense
Good grief, "single-operator" means SINGLE OPERATOR, regardless of whether he or she is running key, keyboard, mike, logging program, or looking up interest DX callsigns on while the system is belting out near-useless CQ's at 0300 ULT (ur local time). C'mon, oh Purists, multi-op means having another human actively helping in the process of making or logging QSO's.

While I'm at it, but on a different topic altogether, I'd love to see "QRP" defined more realistically per theoretical S-units scale, for at least some major contests:

If "Low Power" = 100W RF output, (typically requiring 20A DC supply) then:

QRP = 25W RF out (4-5A battery @ 13.8 VDC)
QRPp = 5W output (1A DC)
QRPpp = 1 watt or below


Posted by K4ZRA on January 19, 2007

I shouldn't be able to force you into another category
I should not be able to force another into a category by telling them something.

They shouldn't be forced to act as if they didn't know it. A more extreme example, what happens when you are told to QRT because there is a ZD7 under you. Should you now be prohibited from working him?

People who abuse this (tell all their friends to tell them things, rather than log into packet) are another case. They are assisted.

Posted by N2BA on January 14, 2007

Oh, Please
Can't this topic die a quick and quiet death already?

This is the unfortunate unforseen consequence of calling the "Single Op w/Packet Cluster" category "SO-Assisted." This has caused some to claim ANY and ALL forms of "assistance" automatically upgrades one to the "Assisted" category. C'mon.

In the instance posed by the question, we're not talking about a regular, steady feed of information from multiple sources. We're talking about a random and unsolicited act of kindness and/or sportsmanship. Neither party should be penalized or be forced to undergo an involuntary category change for such an act!

Posted by WN3VAW on January 9, 2007

Of course it doesn't require you to file as "assisted" for a random incident like this.

I read the threads regarding this on the CQ-Contest reflector, and it reminded me of picking fly droppings out of the pepper.

We all know what "assistance" means. There's no need to build up these absurd scenarios in an effort to create a straw man to knock down.

Posted by AA4LR on January 5, 2007

No control!
One has no control as to what the other operator may say. If one is not asking for helpful information then he/she is not asking for an assist.
I guess the follow-up question would be:
Would you go and work the multiplier or just ignore what someone told you?
To me, this whole assisted vs unassisted thing is getting blown way out of proportion. Just operate!

Posted by NX5M on January 4, 2007

the question is poorly worded
Simply "giving information" should not change the category.

But ACTING on that information, should change to SOA/unlimited.

Posted by kr2q on January 3, 2007

Read the question !
The key words are "gives you the frequency", which implies the (valuable) information was unsolicited, therefore the 'unassisted' station can still remain so.

Additionally, there should be nothing that another station can do to force you into a category you do not wish to be in.

regards, David VK2CZ

Posted by vk2cz on January 2, 2007

late in SS I'm often asking if they've heard VY1. thats operating, not using outside soures

Posted by ny1e on January 2, 2007

Resistance is futile!
Cluster use should always be allowed by all.

Posted by AA8LL on January 2, 2007

To post a comment, you must be logged in.

If you are not a member, become one now!