[PVRCNC] Fwd: [CQ-Contest] Surveys, chairs and more Surveys

[Henry Pollock - K4TMC]

I don't know if everyone is following the discussions about the Single
Operator and Assisted Categories merger such as noted below, but I wanted
to encourage all active PVRC-NC contesters to participate in the Contest
Committee survey.  Plus, there is a related survey question on the
Contesting.com web page.  I do not have a link to the Contest Committee
survey since I deleted the original note. So, hopefully everyone received
their own invitation to vote.

Please VOTE!

And just so you know where I stand - I want the Single Op category to stay
as-is - the purest form of radiosport, where it is the operator, his
radio(s), and antennas against the propagation gods!

73,
Henry - K4TMC





On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 1:18 AM, Stan Stockton <wa5rtg at gmail.com> wrote:

> I realize only a very small percentage of contesters read the traffic on
> this reflector but it is one avenue to discuss  contest related issues
> whether it be comfortable chairs or the future of contesting. The Internet
> is great!
>
> As those of you who read everything on this reflector know, a survey is
> being conducted to see what the response will be (from those who respond)
> regarding whether the single operator category should be eliminated
> completely in favor of one category (assisted) that is already in place for
> ones who want to use assistance to find the DX to work.
>
> I see another survey on the contesting.com website that asks whether
> there should be an open discussion as to whether to "merge" the two
> categories in light of the fact that it is difficult and expensive to catch
> the cheaters.  I am at a loss as to how to answer that question.  Certainly
> want it to be discussed if the alternative is to eliminate Single Operator
> category without discussion.  Don't want it discussed if wanting it to be
> discussed means I am in favor of the proposed change.
>
> 1.   However hard to imagine, the thought of eliminating the standard
> single operator category in which 2/3 of entrants choose to enter is
> seriously being considered and seemingly everyone's opinion will be counted
> regardless of how much thought you give it.
>
> There are two reasons I can think of why 2/3 would choose to not use
> "assistance":
>
>      A.  They want to compete in a category where they have developed
> skills to find and copy the stations they work without having remote
> receivers all over the world do it for them, and they want to compete with
> others who want to do the same.  Seems like a valid reason for some to not
> choose assisted. It is fun to find and work DX.  Many have forgotten how
> fun that activity can be.
>
>     B.  They do not have access to the Internet at their station.
>
> I suspect most are in A above.
>
> 2.  Elimination of Single Operator category would result in cutting the
> awards and recognition for outstanding efforts by 50% unless replaced with
> yet another category over which adjudication would be difficult - similar
> to low power, high power, QRP, Tribanders and wires, etc.
>
> 3. There will be an impact on expeditions where serious operators can
> currently choose a category and compete for winning without having to
> secure reliable Internet service.  Since it would not possible to win
> without the RBN giving you a list of every station in the world calling CQ,
> those who are serious and either do not want to compete on that basis or
> who cannot secure Internet service will perhaps choose to not go on that
> expedition.  More expeditions -  I doubt.  Fewer expeditions - probably.
>
> The only reason I have heard for this to even be discussed is that the
> contest sponsors spend a lot of time and expense trying to verify whether
> someone might be cheating.
>
> If 2/3 choose to enter a category, knowing full well that in that category
> along with all other categories a possibility exists for someone to cheat
> and get away with it, is there good reason to even discuss eliminating that
> most popular category?
>
> I would rather not see anyone's rights or freedoms be taken away if
> exercising those rights does not adversely impact others.
>
> Saying you still have the option to not use assistance is fine for those
> who want to play for a few hours of fun but not for those who are serious
> competitors.
>
> Most contesters worldwide who did not submit an entry under their call
> sign in the last contest with their email included are unaware this
> discussion is taking place.  Many avid contesters in the USA are unaware
> because they were part of a multi-operator group or don't subscribe to this
> reflector and read it carefully.  This is one matter where an opinion may
> actually count.
>
> I think the real question is whether there is real and serious detriment
> to the "minority" who already have a category allowing them to use
> assistance because those in the vast majority who don't choose to use it
> are allowed to compete with others who feel the same way?
>
> I urge everyone to take the various surveys regardless of your opinions
> but consider the question in the paragraph above before forming an opinion.
> When I looked earlier there were fewer than 20 responses to the survey on
> contesting.com.
>
> Let's take this subject up in a few years if the percentages "naturally"
> reverse and the number of Single Operator entries are only 1/3 - same as
> current level of Single Operator Assisted.  Sound fair?
>
> 73...Stan, K5GO
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>