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!


There are rumors that due to the difficulty of detecting packet use the CQ WW contest committee is discussing eliminating the SO unassisted category leaving only the SO assisted category. Competitors can decide if they do or do not want to use DX cluster spots. What do you think of this idea? [This is no longer a rumor - Bob Cox says SO will stay and be strengthened]
  Posted: Feb 01, 2010   (130 votes, 6 comments) by VE5ZX

  Excellent
  Good
  Won't make a difference
  Not so good
  Dreadful
  Don't know
  Don't care.
    (130 votes, 6 comments)
Survey Results
Excellent 18% (23)
Good 8% (11)
Won't make a difference 12% (15)
Not so good 12% (16)
Dreadful 45% (58)
Don't know 2% (2)
Don't care. 4% (5)

Survey Comments
SO/SOA
It would be the same logic as eliminating low power and/or QRP categories because there's no way to tell how much power someone's using. If adopted, it would mean that Gresham's Law is alive and well in radio contesting.

Posted by KU2M on January 22, 2010

Eliminating SO unassisted
Do I read this question correctly(Eliminating the Single Operator) Class!!! So the cheaters can have their way. I guess that is what it is all coming to reward the cheaters at the expense of everyone else....

Sounds like we are back in Kindergarten punish the whole class because Joey pilled Mary's pony tail.....

Let's try and find a way to deal with the cheaters!

Surely this is a mistake... At least I hope so!!!

Posted by N5ER on January 20, 2010

SO/SOA
I agree that SO Unassisted should be kept separate and strengthened. What is meant by unassisted needs to be better defined. Rigs with fish finders provide extra information which in turn assists the operator. On the other hand, there are rigs without fish finders that interface to PCs or other peripherals that provide similar information, without using packet or skimmer. In the end, those who want to cheat will probably find a way of doing so. But the majority will do the right thing and compete within their category and derive satisfaction through being ethical.

Posted by VE6CNU on January 19, 2010

No Longer a Rumor. SO to Stay
In a recent open letter to the contest community Bob Cox, K3EST, has stated "We were going to support the need for a category relying just on human talents. In other words, not only do we continue to totally support SO and SOA being separate, we intend to move towards strengthening the SO category."

I will leave the survey question as it is for a few more days. Syl

Posted by VE5ZX on January 18, 2010

Eliminating the SO Category
SO unassisted in my mind is real contesting. It is all about integrity. I would rather come in 2nd place and have integrity than cheat using a spotting network.

Eliminating the SO unassisted category solves nothing. It just eliminates a whole class of contesting.

Posted by N2PP on January 18, 2010

Eliminating the SO unassisted category
Spotting is very helpful and I usually use it, especially in the big contests.

There is a group of people who prefer to not use spotting and who want to compete against others who feel the same way.

It would be unfortunate to eliminate their category because of cheaters.

There has to be a better way to solve the problem.


Posted by kt1b on January 18, 2010

To post a comment, you must be logged in.

If you are not a member, become one now!