1. Messages
  2. To A, or not to A = that is the question

Re: To A, or not to A = that is the question

Hugh Valentine <N4RJ@...>
 

Like most things in America today….we are “watering down” those who are using a purist approach.

A reflection of the state of our country.

 

I think we just have to accept a lower standard.  That is where we have come.

 

Defund the Police so we can do what we wish…easier.

 

Sorry…It is just I think I am seeing.

 

Maybe the whole ballgame is over…

 

Val

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 

From: Ria, N2RJ
Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2020 7:06 PM
To: ARRL-Awards@...
Subject: Re: [ARRL-Awards] To A, or not to A = that is the question

 

CQ WPX committee is saying two things:

 

1. that lots of people who claim to be unassisted actually use assistance. This is not based on anything scientific AFAIK. It’s based purely on hearsay and a few accused cheating incidents, with some of the victims claiming they were wrongly accused (and a few just simply accepting fate).

 

2. It’s really hard to tell who’s cheating by operating with assistance. So let’s just eliminate unassisted so that we don’t have to worry about looking for that kind of cheating. 

 

73

Ria

N2RJ 

 

 

 

On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:36 PM W0MU <w0mu@...> wrote:

There is no push for this in ARRL Contests that I am aware of.  Is CQ essentially stating that there is widespread use of clusters and discords and internet methods of getting spots being used by people claiming to be unassisted?  I found the decision curious.

Mike W0MU
CAC Representative Rocky Mountain Division

On 11/24/2020 3:16 PM, Ria, N2RJ wrote:

Not that I know of, and I sure hope not as well.
 
I personally don't like CQ's decision at all and I personally oppose
it. Others may disagree but I really don't see the need to put
contesters who use radio to find QSOs in the same category with those
who use the Internet to find QSOs.
 
I do operate assisted but that's my choice.
 
One more note - I don't like this idea that we have to harmonize the
rules between WWROF/CQ contests and ARRL contests. Some things make
sense but ARRL's rules can and should be different, and determined by
us and our feedback from the community, particularly the membership.
In reality, those who make rules for ARRL's contests are directly
accountable to dues paying members by virtue of elections, whereas
other organizations will have a small committee that is self-selected.
So there is definitely a different dynamic.
 
(flame suit on)
 
73
Ria, N2RJ
 
On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:04 PM Skip <k6dgw@...> wrote:
Is ARRL planning on doing that?
 
73,
 
Fred ["Skip"] K6DGW
Sparks NV DM09dn
Washoe County
 
On 11/23/2020 8:31 PM, Hans Brakob wrote:
 
If you follow the cq-contest reflector, you know of CQ’s conclusion that non-assisted operators no longer warrant full recognition as a standalone category their magazines’ WPX contest.
 
 
 
Using a non-scientific polling method (I copied what they sent me) I recorded the preferences of 1,338 stations in the recent two weekends of the ARRL SweepStakes competition.
 
 
 
827 (62%) of the respondents (those who sent me A, B, or Q) indicated that their preference is non-assisted operation.
 
509 (38%) of the respondents (those who sent me U or M) indicated that their preference is to operate with assistance.
 
 
 
Do you suppose that ARRL ought to disestablish A, B, and Q, and push those 62% of their participants into U, a category they have so far chosen not to enter?
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

 
Join {ARRL-Awards@groups.arrl.org to automatically receive all group messages.