|
Voting closed.....
|
....but i would come down on the side of No.
Just where would organisers draw the line?
I must confess though to feeling uncomfortable when I read about some of the big gun guest op's 'thanking the team' in their 'after event ' write ups.
Brian 5B4AIZ.
Posted by
g4odv
on December 5, 2008
|
|
Missing the point
|
This thread is nonsense.
The Operative word (excuse the pun) is
OPERATOR. Not BUILDER or OWNER or even MAINTAINER.
The question is HOW MANY PEOPLE OPERATE the station during the contest. Is it ONE (with no help)or ONE (with help)
To me, this makes no more sense than having a separate class for the SO2R guys.
Posted by
K5RT
on September 11, 2008
|
|
Priorities
|
|
I think the effort and rhetoric would be better spent figuring out what the heck to do about CW Skimmer. SSB-only types may think Skimmer will never affect them, but considering the increasing power available to DSP, I'd never say NEVER.
Posted by
AB5XZ
on August 31, 2008
|
|
New class
|
OK
So the reason to vote yes is a need to establish a new competition category for gues ops.
That kind of makes sense.
But there are so many categories already.
Please understand this also from contest organiser's point of view.
The more categories, the more complicated to organise a contest.
Nobody really voted yes to this one, but voted for establishing a guest-op category.
Thanks.
73,
jukka OH6LI
Posted by
OH6LI
on August 27, 2008
|
|
4 leaf clover vs 3 leaf clovers thats why
|
Hundreds of single ops are waxed by hired guns at superstations in every contest.
Maybe 2 or 3 hams trade stations in rediculous circumstances like you suggest over the years. That's why.
And the Mario Andretti comment is off base too; they do have privateer classes in motor racing.
Posted by
W5AO
on August 27, 2008
|
|
Why? Part II
|
BA Tower Company builds a station for Ron. Across the road they build a 100% identical station for Don.
Ron and Don operate the contest from their respective stations. You consider them single op.
Ron and Don swap stations and operate the contest (remember, they're right across the road from each other and 100% identical.) Now you consider them multi-op.
Once again, the only difference is who owns the hardware. Why would one case be single-op and one multi-op?
Posted by
K9NW
on August 26, 2008
|
|
status quo
|
|
As it is now, all five of your examples have to compete on the "level" playing field with a K1AR at K3LR. Not much level about that.
Posted by
W5AO
on August 26, 2008
|
|
Multi Op
|
Every contest sponsor thus far has defined an "operator" as the person actually making the QSOs during the contest so I'm pretty sure this is a moot discussion, and this will be my last contribution to it. Here's how your definition would play out:
1. W5AO and I both have identical antennas and stations and live two miles apart. For whatever reason (maybe to compare rigs) we decide to switch stations for the next contest and both have to enter as multi-op.
2. I happen to be on vacation in Michigan during WPX and my buddy there lets me use his modest low power station for the contest. I have to enter as multi-op and compete against ten ringers at K3LR running high power.
3. A new ham with only VHF gear of his own decides he'd like to try HF contesting and gets permission to operate from his local club station. He gets thrown to the wolves and has to compete against ten ringers at K3LR running high power. In fact, ANYONE who single-ops from a club station would have to enter as multi-op.
4. I plan a mini-DXpedition to a country in Africa for CQWW CW and make arrangements to operate from a local ham's home using his FT-100D and A3S on a roof tripod. I get to compete against CN2R.
5. A ham who operates 15m single band from a friend's station has to compete against all-band multi-ops.
For every comeuppance you expect your proposal would deliver to guest ops that you perceive undeservedly enhance their reputation at a super station, you'd muck up the contesting environment for dozens of mostly average hams and discourage their participation.
For the record, by the way, I've never operated any contest from any station other than my own.
Posted by
AB7E
on August 26, 2008
|
|
Definition of Multi Op
|
I am not convinced.
Definition of multi op is not the same as the definition for a sngle op that happens to be a guest op.
Making a single guest op compete against teams of guest ops at some other station will not even the playing field.
Making playing field even for many kinds of contesters, including the newcomers, means we need to keep the QRP, Low Power and single-band classes.
Making a rule to place guest ops to multi-op category will not even the playing field for anybody.
73,
Jukka OH6LI
Posted by
OH6LI
on August 26, 2008
|
|
Get the Premise
|
Reducing it to someone must build their own rigs or they had assistance is not the issue.
W5AO is both an operator and a station. Operating skill AND the station are the variables in a contest. Using one's skill and another's station is the product of two hams efforts.
The premise is whether this dual entity is a single op the same as a hired gun using someone else's superstation. Using another's station and their own operating skills is unfairly categorized as a single op.
There is: 1. the operator and 2. someone else who built, bought and thought the hardware. That is not one ham's contest effort but two hams effort against the single entity ham using their own station.
The opposition is not unexpected; there are many operators who have built their contest reputations on other's stations and they are understandably defensive of their multi-op advantage they have enjoyed over the years.
It is easy to decide which would count as a multi-op. If the operator was not the holder of the license of the station, it is multi. If the operator is operating their own station it is single-op.
I think VE6EX had it right. You can never really "level" the playing field because some are good ops and have good stations and some have one or the other. But that is an individual's advantage. Combining station and guest operator is using two hams and is a two ham advantage. Having two hams is multi op.
Posted by
W5AO
on August 26, 2008
|
|
No Offence Pal
|
The question was:
Do you think guest ops should be classified as multi ops and my reply was Yes. No sarcasm intended or expressed
73.. gl in the contest..
Posted by
ve6ex
on August 25, 2008
|
|
Huh?
|
VE6EX, the original survey question involved visiting ops but you've tried to generalize it to leveling the playing field. That's not very helpful.
Besides, why put a single op at a top tier station in a multi-op category just because he able to use more and better antennas? With that kind of reasoning, why not bump a low power single op using a 4-stack antenna array into the high power category? Or push a similarly equipped single band entry into a multiband category? Both make just as much sense as trying to pretend the op is more than one person. Like Jukka says, there are categories already established for giving the lesser stations a shot at glory. Possibly an argument could be made for more or different categories, but what benefit is gained by corrupting the existing ones?
If voting yes was so easy for you, I assume it will also be easy for you to let us know where to draw the line between a big gun station and and a more modest one. Try to be specific.
You did at least confirm my suspicions, though, that some of the people who voted yes did so out of resentment instead of logic.
Posted by
AB7E
on August 25, 2008
|
|
Experienced vs Un-
|
Dan,
I cannot understand.
Are you writing someone who is experienced and operated a station with stack should be set to multiop category?
In case you feel there is nothing for newcomers, the single band, low power, QRP, TriBander/Single element classes are for newcomers or others who do not want to try to get too serious.
For the serious the SOAB2RHPSTACKS is probably the right category.
When I was younger, I operated SOABHP. But I did not set my target to win the event at the first try ...
Can you please explain how will making experienced operators to multioperator category help the newcomers?
I really have difficulties to follow.
73,
Jukka OH6LI
Posted by
OH6LI
on August 25, 2008
|
|
Voting yes was easy
|
It all depends if contesting is going towards a more level playing field or running off the newbies. An average contester/enthusiast in a big gun countryside s1 noise setup will kill a hotshot on a city lot with a tribander on his roof every time.
I have personally done both (biggun/stacks/multi/so2r etc years ago) and have come back to my city lot 2el/ slopers stuff 'cuz it's MY "Real effort"; not a mega stacks es killer amps backup/addon to my op ability.
In contesting rate is everything and loud is good/ louder is better. All station builders strive towards a s02r/ multi++ configuration;; and as such should play that way. So2r is just a one man multi. The scores back that up. Level the playing field and contesting will grow, play it like now and it will be just another deep pockets/ big acerage game in the end.
Dan, VE6EX
Posted by
ve6ex
on August 25, 2008
|
|
Transition
|
When does a reasonably equipped station transition into a perceived super station? ie, howlarg eis large, and how small is king size, and what is the rule about a whopper? In my case, is a field portable station with multiple 'big' monoband antennas classed as super ? Stations are a bit like Burgers.
David Burger VK2CZ / VK8AA
Posted by
vk2cz
on August 24, 2008
|
|
Voting yes
|
Jukka, most surveys get some minimal percentage of votes (typically 10% to 20%) for any answer to almost any question. Some respondents don't understand the question but vote anyway, seemingly randomly. Some respondents have an agenda different than the question but vote opposite the predominant answer as a silent protest.
In this case, I suspect that several of those who voted yes simply resent hams who guest operate from better stations even though they wouldn't honestly consider them to be multi-op. Thus far, 43 people have voted yes but not a single one has tried to explain why. I find that kind of interesting.
73,
Dave AB7E
Posted by
AB7E
on August 19, 2008
|
|
Is any of the comments
|
for the multi - op claim?
Personally I cannot imagine why a single operator at a station would be deemed multiop.
I think the 'for' voters have misunderstood the question or is there a reasoning for voting yes to this one?
73,
jukka OH6LI
Posted by
OH6LI
on August 19, 2008
|
|
Elmers
|
The number of hams who got their contest operating wings at other stations is hard to estimate. Must be a lot of them. If we enacted this rule, what's next? Concept is deeply flawed.
These days we need to do things that encourage ops to get on the air, not discourage them.
In any event...a top op in a top station is a top score...a lid in a top station is still a lid.
Posted by
K2AV
on August 15, 2008
|
|
guest operators at super-stations
|
It's a good thing (for me and many others) that often the station builders greatest joy is providing a playground for great operators to win contests. I have enjoyed guest operating and several fine stations over the years and it is currently beyond my financial means to build this type of station (though one day I sure hope to do it).
It still takes a great single-operator, even at a super-station, to win a contest.
The fact that an operator is fortunate enough to be a guest operator doesn't change the operation category.
73,
Jim WX3B
Posted by
wx3b
on August 14, 2008
|
|
ha?
|
|
designing and building a station are two very different things. i dont think there's any serious station built by one man? on the other hand I think most of good guest ops would probably be good in designing a contest station.
Posted by
9a6xx
on August 14, 2008
|
|
More to the point is ...
|
...the difference between the wires versus towers stations. Operating skill can have a big impact, but it cannot overcome 100+ foot towers and multiple beams. Regardless of who put them up. It would be interesting to see more of the wires category and tower categories.
Dave
K4DGW
Posted by
k4dgw
on August 7, 2008
|
|
Strange query
|
|
if I take all my radios, computers and hardware (including my paddle and earbuds!) to that place and I took part on the antenna design. All what I need is to move away from urban noise and potential risk of TVI/RFI. Let me hope that I'm entitled to use my own call...
Posted by
ok1rr
on August 6, 2008
|
|
A slippery slope
|
How is borrowing a superstation different than somebody
paying for experts to build one for them (install towers,
antennas, radios, computers, etc.)?
And, as a more snarky comment, I build most of the
radios I contest with (Electraft). Does that make everybody
who purchased a pre-built radio assisted? Wow. That
would finally clear the way so even _I_ could win
something! {grin}
We're all here to have fun. Let's just count the number of
ops in the seats.
-- Scott (NE1RD)
Posted by
ne1rd
on August 5, 2008
|
|
Call Sign and Points
|
|
So guest operator/contester A uses operator B's station. Whose call sign should be used? Now, if points are being awarded over a yearly scale (for a national ranking), who gets the points...A or B? The operator...or the transmitting station?
Posted by
VE3RCN
on August 5, 2008
|
|
It's Orwellian
|
|
So Mario Andretti didn't really win all those races (somebody else owned the cars)... and the Giants didn't really win Superbowl XLII (it was somebody else's stadium)... and...
Posted by
KU2M
on August 2, 2008
|
|
Undefinable
|
I agree with K9NW that your underlying premise is deeply flawed ... many upper tier contest stations were designed and built with significant direct assistance from other than the owner. Aside from that, though, your boundary conditions are undefinable. Stations hosting you as a guest op might include (in ascending order):
1. a buddy who has an identical station as you do except maybe with room for an 80m Inverted-V
2. a modest club station with HF capability versus your VHF station
3. a friend across town with a much better contest rig than you have
4. a top DXer in your club who owns stacked yagis on a 120 foot tower but doesn't like to contest
5. K1TTT with an east coast location
How would you decide which station would put you into a multi-op category and which wouldn't? It doesn't matter one bit what your answer would be ... the point is that it would be purely arbitrary where you or anyone else drew the line.
Posted by
AB7E
on August 1, 2008
|
|
Why?
|
Scenario A: Op A lives in an apartment but likes to operate contests. Op B is a local DXer who likes to design and build big stations but doesn't operate contests. Op A gets to drive the big station in a contest.
Scenario B: Op A has the land and resources to build a big station but doesn't climb towers. Op B is in the tower business and designs and builds the big station for Op A. Op A gets to drive his big station in a contest.
The only difference here is the owner of the hardware. Why would one be a multi-op and one a single-op?
Posted by
K9NW
on August 1, 2008
|
22% (61)