eHam Logo

Community
 Home
 eHam.net Home
 Articles & Stories
 Contesting Wiki
 Speakout
 Strays
 Survey
 My Profile

Resources
 This Week's Contests
 Classified Ads
 Contest Links
 Product Reviews



Contest Lists
 3830
 CQ-Contest
 CT-User
 NA-User
 SD-User
 TRLog
 VHFcontesting
 WriteLog

Other Lists
 Amps
 AntennaWare
 Propagation
 RFI
 RTTY
 TenTec
 TopBand
 TowerTalk
 Yaesu

 Mailing List FAQs


Site Information
 About This Site
 Contesting.com 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?
2016-05-28


What's your primary Software for HF Contests ? ( no VHF/UHF ! )
2015-07-17


Are you ready the this year's winter contest season
2015-07-05


What ways have you found to be effective to attract newcomers to our hobby?
2015-04-28


What is your linear?
2015-02-09


View All Survey Questions

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


WAE and RDXC recently merged assisted and non-assisted single operator categories. Would you favour such a move for the CQWW contest?
  Posted: Jun 13, 2008   (147 votes, 8 comments) by VE5ZX

  Yes
  No
  Maybe
  Don't Know
  Don't Care
    (147 votes, 8 comments)
Survey Results
Yes 24% (36)
No 68% (100)
Maybe 3% (5)
Don't Know 1% (2)
Don't Care 3% (4)

Survey Comments
SO merg
My ex call was KB3TS now NT4TS
I have many QRP certs.
so I ask.

What effect whould this have on the QRP op
who have been forced to op SO non-assisted catagory? If this is put into action the the QRP rule needs to change with it

Posted by NT4TS on August 17, 2009

SO Class Merging in CQWW
I use posts for casual DXing, but not for contests; while I
certainly don't denigrate those who operate Assisted, the
Assisted class encompasses a style of contesting as
different from Non Assisted as Single Band is from All
Band or High Power is from Low Power. If we merge
assisted and non-assisted, then one might ask why not
just do away with all the categories and merge everything
into one giant free-for-all? Sound crazy? Well, just as
crazy as maintaining that one person with one set of ears
and hands is the same as someone being helped by a
worldwide net of hundreds or thousands of operators
cooperating to determine where all the DX is, and aided
by a system that can even perform instant QSYing for him.
Operating, and especially contesting, is more than
reading a screen to see what's on, where it is and pushing
buttons. It's human skill and endurance (and luck), which
is the essence of sports. The packet cluster is a great
advantage and doesn't just "assist," but transforms the
single operator into a new and different entity. In fact,
merging these two very different categories would do
more than merely "allow" one to use packet spots; it would
absolutely require it! The nature of the competitive drive
would then demand more and more external assistance,
and with the concept of the unassisted operator as
obsolete as cat's whisker tuning, would naturally
accelerate further development of and reliance upon
digital automata, packet cluster spotting, and even robots
(as is suggested by the advent of inventions such as
"Skimmer"). If we take this to its logical conclusion, then as
more and more sophisticated interactive devices,
protocols and systems are developed to do more and
more of our operating for us, human skill in contesting
will become wholly subjugated to technology, instead of
technology being subjugated to human skill, which is what
contesting and sports is all about in the first place. While
I'm definitely not a Luddite, in such a scenario, the
ultimate future of contesting may very well turn out to be
computers competing against other computers while we
either watch or sleep, and all we will do is turn them on
and off and pray for propagation. (And yes, Skynet will
supply the posts!) With human ability eliminated, all that
remains will be luck.

Is that what contesting is about?

Sounds a bit boring to me.

Posted by KU2M on June 21, 2008

CQWW
With the Skimmer being added to Assisted categories in some contests, it is even more important to keep the Assisted category separate.

Tim K6GEP

Posted by k6gep on June 20, 2008

Looks like another 2-1 opposing vote so far.

Stan, K5GO

Posted by nn5j on June 20, 2008

Assisted?
The answer depends on what we mean under the term 'assisted'. If it should be 'cluster/no_cluster' criteria, I would vote 'yes' - it should be merged. Second OP or more than one signal on the air is different matter - it is a cheat, it is not SO category at all, also nothing to do with any 'assistance'. If the 'assistance' is the YL making coffee or my dog lying on my legs, then I'm 'assisted' any time. Otherwise the 'assisted' category is meaningless...

Posted by ok1rr on June 19, 2008

CQWW
Personally, I don't have any desire to become, or compete against, assisted stations, so I think I'll stick with the contests that offer an unassisted category for single ops.

Andrew

Posted by zs6aaa on June 15, 2008

CQWW
CQWW is the "Gold Standard" of DX contests. With the CQWW in mind, ops around the world invest more time and money to build competitive stations, and activate more places, than for any other event. How the WAE and RDXC set up their events need not have any influence on what the CQWW does or doesn't do.

Posted by K9NW on June 14, 2008

Cheating is not a valid reason to merge the categories. Using that logic, there should only be one category, and there's no way to prevent a SO from having a second op and/or more than one signal on the air at the same time.

Posted by w2up on June 13, 2008

To post a comment, you must be logged in.

If you are not a member, become one now!