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!

Thanks for voting! Your vote has been included in the results below.

Should the assisted category be removed?
  Posted: May 27, 2002   (502 votes, 14 comments) by VE5ZX

Survey Results
Yes 35% (177)
No 51% (258)
Not sure 5% (23)
Don't care 9% (44)

Survey Comments
Having 200 friends helping you through the net should help you and you should have a better score than real SO/Unassisted.
I don't understand how real SO/Unassisted can have a more better score than SO/Assisted...see the recent published scores.
Also, in M/S operation two or more ops can work mults on different bands MUCH better than a SO2R. So... if I am SO/Assisted I don't want to be merged in than category.
REMOVE SO/ASSISTED.... The difference between those who passively read DXCluster's spots and those who S&P also, is the winning difference !
"Do what I say, don't do what I do"?

Posted by it9gsf on August 3, 2002

NU6S said it very well.

Posted by wa4dou on June 19, 2002

Who wants the assisted category removed? The true single op stations? , no I dont think so. Why would they care.
Isnt removing the assisted category and keeping spotting nets really removing the true single op category and keeping the assisted category?
I think the people who want the assisted category removed really want the stigma of having assistance removed.
I guess I agree with an earlier poster, who said, if you remove it, merge it with the multi single category, which it is more closely related to.

And the argument that we can't enforce people from cheating does not hold water. With that logic we can say remove the QRP and Low power categories also.

Posted by NU6S on June 7, 2002

Instead, eliminate the RF component. That way everybody is on the Net, nobody has to fight with towers, antennas, CC&Rs, PRB-1, broken rotators, shorted coax, lightning protection, burned-out 8877s, fried output finals and flaky baluns.

Since the thrust seems to be merging the Net with radio, why not just go all the way? I'll let others fight over whether there should be separate categories for cable, DSL, dial-up, satellite or fractional T1.

And just imagine the SO2C possibilities (single-op, two computer). Tree, are you listening?

C'mon folks, shouldn't there be at least ONE category where radio skill still counts?

Posted by VE4XT on June 4, 2002

SOA claiming SO
I don't follow the reasoning behind "we think people cheat and run SOA but claim SO, therefore we should ONLY have the SOA category". So why have 3 power level categories? I guess we should just have a QROOOOO category because everyone runs high power, too?

C'mon, guys - where's the logic? There are a number of "unenforceable" rules in contesting. That's reality and the way you deal with it is peer pressure. And, guaranteed it's easier to find ops using assistance (but not claiming it) versus ops running more power than allowed by their category.

Posted by N5TJ on May 30, 2002

Convergence of Amateur Radio and the Internet
Whether there is a microprocessor in your rig, keyer, dsp, etc or a microcomputer used for logging, rotating antennas or connected to the Internet you are being assisted. The notion of a separate assisted category is artificial and unenforceable. It is time to take the blinders off and stare the future directly in the face. Amateur Radio and the Internet will converge changing the face of contesting forever. It is merely a matter of time. So let's get going with this exciting journey by dropping the assisted category!

Posted by VE5ZX on May 30, 2002

I think assisted category should be removed. Better yet the category should be allowed the rights of assisted..

That is I voted to remove the assisted category because I want to have one singleop category that has spotting etc. rights without a question.

I have two main reasons:
1. I have heard accusations towards many contesters they are using spotting but sending "traditional" singleop logs. It is not fair for the real singleops and this kind of cheating should end.

2. This brings all singleoperators closer to the leading edge of contesting technology. Internet connections are available practically everywhere.
The world is developing and we, Radio Amateurs, always claim we are on the leading edge of technology.
I want that to really be the case even in today's contesting.

To make this clear: I want to have only one singleop category with rights to use all bells and whistles to spot stations. But they need to be singleoperators only.
Focused spotting help by individual(s) to an individual should be considered to be a multiop effort.

Multiop categories should stay as they are: allowed to use spotting systems. And they can get external help, too.

Jukka, OH6LI (usually at OH4A or OH0V)

Posted by OH6LI on May 29, 2002

merge with M/S
If you're using packet, you're NOT Single Op - end of story. Merge it with M/S.

If you like packet, use it, realizing that having your 200 closest friends help find mults and new Qs make you distinctly not single op

Ted KT1V

Posted by kr1g on May 28, 2002

Add mobile category
One way to encourage more folks to enter contesting is to add a mobile/pedestrian portable category. There are many who can't (for whatever reason) operate a high-dollar operation but have a mobile rig in the car. This would be along the same lines as the TS (tribander/single wire) category.

Not suitable for EVERY contest, but certainly a few of the majors would see some growth with this category.

Posted by N0HR on May 28, 2002

I like the unassisted catagories. They give people a opportunity to compete with vintage rigs that can't productively use spots.

Posted by KZ5A on May 28, 2002

Why Unassisted?
Firstly portable operation without DX cluster would be disadvantaged.
Secondly the use of the cluster is already making DXing by "weaker" stations (those without beams and 100W) difficult without. The fewer operators using the cluster the better.

I find it difficult to think of reasons for this change.

Posted by g0wjn on May 28, 2002

With all the crazy things that have been happening on and with the packet cluster, I enjoy staying away from it in the non-assisted category. Just my opinion, im sure others will think differenly :-)

Posted by KB9UWU on May 28, 2002

Yes but...
Do you mean combine SO and SOA into one category?
If so, I vote yes.

Posted by w2up on May 27, 2002

Remove barriers
The sooner we remove all barriers between the rig and the Internet the sooner we will experience the emergence of novel amateur technologies and a new styles of contesting. More importanty, I believe that these barriers discourage youngsters from becoming an amateur or a contester. We certainly cannot afford to have barriers of this kind.


Posted by VE5ZX on May 27, 2002

To post a comment, you must be logged in.

If you are not a member, become one now!