My dawg in this debate is the single operator all band (SOAB) category, the single operator 2 radio (SO2R), and SOAB-assisted using hardware interfacing such as clusters feeding band maps, other people's skills in addition to skimmer decoding of continuous wave (CW) signals.
I'm citing Neiger's #2 premise can log checking algorithms ascertain as to whether anyone is cheating by the use of packet, clusters feeding band maps, or decoding CW signals with skimmer technoloy then claim SOAB entry?
The traditional SOAB operator/station configuration falls into the purest definition of point-to-point contact. An SO2R operator/station configuration also falls into the purest definition with its hardware addendum of an additional, identical station for logging multipliers on a second wavelength. Is SOAB in parity with SO2R and does log checking software ascertain that an SOAB entrant is not in fact SOAB-assisted?
If log checking algorithms cannot affirm to accuracy of 100 percent the distinct difference between SOAB and SOAB-assisted and SO2R is in parity with SOAB then I'm left with one dawg in the debate.
I would support eliminating SOAB-assisted.
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 22:06:03 -0700
From: "JIM NEIGER"
To: "CQ-Contest MailList"
Subject: [CQ-Contest] AN OPEN LETTER TO THE CQ CONTEST COMMITTEE
Rumors are flying once again. Perhaps true; hopefully not. I thought perhaps it useful to dust off my letter from three years ago.
Vy 73,
Jim Neiger N6TJ
Subject: AN OPEN LETTER TO THE CQ CONTEST COMMITTEE
1. QUESTION: Will the CQ CONTEST COMMITTEE open its closed discussions of the fate of Single Operator categories to the public or will we first learn of them when the rules are changed?
2. PREMISE: The CQ CONTEST log checkers cannot efficiently or accurately ascertain as to whether anyone is cheating by the use of packet, claiming to be Single Operator, but when really operating Single Operator - Assisted.
3. WHAT THE CQ CONTEST COMMITTEE IS CONSIDERING: Given (2), above, eliminate the Single Operator category, and everyone is then Single Operator - Assisted.
My opinions / comments:
(1) Needless to say, given (3) above, to be competitive all must then use packet, or skimmers, or...........?
(2) Can I assume that not everyone desires to use packet or skimmers?
(3) Of course, major crutches like packet and skimmers will make all past records null and void. Single Operator - Assisted multiplier totals will soon rival those of Multi-multi submittals.
(4) Packet is used and enjoyed by many. From the DX-end, one can always tell when they've just been spotted; the rate really takes off. Great fun. Many opinions have been stated about the pro/cons/desires of using packet. But at the end of the day, no matter how you slice it, packet, skimmers, and the like, is NOT DXing, represents minimal skills, and is more like the proverbial 'shooting fish in a barrel'. Great competition. NOT.
(5) QUESTION: Who are these guys that are the members of the CQ CONTEST COMMITTEE and hold our collective fate in their hands? Hard working, volunteer log checkers, for sure. But does anyone remember voting them into office? Who gave them the power to VOTE on these matters of such great importance to us all? For those who extol the merits of our democratic way of life, no matter how pathetic our elected officials at times may be, we at least had the opportunity to vote them in, or out, of office.
(6) TO SUMMARIZE: I have been operating CQ contests since 1955. Many. Won a couple, lost a bunch. Needless to say, when I resigned from the CQ CONTEST COMMITTEE in 1978, my power to vote was gone. All I can do now is plea: open up your deliberations and discussions on these matters. Let all of us know who's minds we need to change. What have you got to hide? Please do not make this the death of my contesting career, as it most certainly will.
Thank you.
s Jim Neiger N6TJ
17 January 2010
Image may be NSFW.I'm citing Neiger's #2 premise can log checking algorithms ascertain as to whether anyone is cheating by the use of packet, clusters feeding band maps, or decoding CW signals with skimmer technoloy then claim SOAB entry?
The traditional SOAB operator/station configuration falls into the purest definition of point-to-point contact. An SO2R operator/station configuration also falls into the purest definition with its hardware addendum of an additional, identical station for logging multipliers on a second wavelength. Is SOAB in parity with SO2R and does log checking software ascertain that an SOAB entrant is not in fact SOAB-assisted?
If log checking algorithms cannot affirm to accuracy of 100 percent the distinct difference between SOAB and SOAB-assisted and SO2R is in parity with SOAB then I'm left with one dawg in the debate.
I would support eliminating SOAB-assisted.
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 22:06:03 -0700
From: "JIM NEIGER"
To: "CQ-Contest MailList"
Subject: [CQ-Contest] AN OPEN LETTER TO THE CQ CONTEST COMMITTEE
Rumors are flying once again. Perhaps true; hopefully not. I thought perhaps it useful to dust off my letter from three years ago.
Vy 73,
Jim Neiger N6TJ
Subject: AN OPEN LETTER TO THE CQ CONTEST COMMITTEE
1. QUESTION: Will the CQ CONTEST COMMITTEE open its closed discussions of the fate of Single Operator categories to the public or will we first learn of them when the rules are changed?
2. PREMISE: The CQ CONTEST log checkers cannot efficiently or accurately ascertain as to whether anyone is cheating by the use of packet, claiming to be Single Operator, but when really operating Single Operator - Assisted.
3. WHAT THE CQ CONTEST COMMITTEE IS CONSIDERING: Given (2), above, eliminate the Single Operator category, and everyone is then Single Operator - Assisted.
My opinions / comments:
(1) Needless to say, given (3) above, to be competitive all must then use packet, or skimmers, or...........?
(2) Can I assume that not everyone desires to use packet or skimmers?
(3) Of course, major crutches like packet and skimmers will make all past records null and void. Single Operator - Assisted multiplier totals will soon rival those of Multi-multi submittals.
(4) Packet is used and enjoyed by many. From the DX-end, one can always tell when they've just been spotted; the rate really takes off. Great fun. Many opinions have been stated about the pro/cons/desires of using packet. But at the end of the day, no matter how you slice it, packet, skimmers, and the like, is NOT DXing, represents minimal skills, and is more like the proverbial 'shooting fish in a barrel'. Great competition. NOT.
(5) QUESTION: Who are these guys that are the members of the CQ CONTEST COMMITTEE and hold our collective fate in their hands? Hard working, volunteer log checkers, for sure. But does anyone remember voting them into office? Who gave them the power to VOTE on these matters of such great importance to us all? For those who extol the merits of our democratic way of life, no matter how pathetic our elected officials at times may be, we at least had the opportunity to vote them in, or out, of office.
(6) TO SUMMARIZE: I have been operating CQ contests since 1955. Many. Won a couple, lost a bunch. Needless to say, when I resigned from the CQ CONTEST COMMITTEE in 1978, my power to vote was gone. All I can do now is plea: open up your deliberations and discussions on these matters. Let all of us know who's minds we need to change. What have you got to hide? Please do not make this the death of my contesting career, as it most certainly will.
Thank you.
s Jim Neiger N6TJ
17 January 2010
Clik here to view.