>From smithb Tue Nov 23 09:37:38 1993
Received: From GF319CS/MAILQUEUE by GF319CS.GF-NET.af.mil
via Charon 3.4 with IPX id 100.931123094012.672;
23 Nov 93 09:40:16 -0500
Message-ID: <MAILQUEUE-99.931123094001.384@GF319CS.GF-NET.af.mil>
To: cq-contest@tgv.com
From: "MSgt Bob Smith/SCSN" <SMITHB@gf319cs.gf-net.af.mil>
Subject: Phone Sweepstakes From North Dakota
Reply-to: smithb
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail v2.1c R5.
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 349
Hours of operation: 15:27
QSO's: 525
Mults: 73
Missed Utah, Puerto Rico, Quebec and Pacific. Heard all but Utah.
75 was it's usual alligator swamp. Spent much time calling stations
Saturday evening only to finally work them on 20 the next day. Might
as well relinquish that band to the B class.
73 de Bob - ND1H - Grand Forks, North Dakota
>From Skelton, Tom" <TSkelton@engineer.clemsonsc.NCR.COM Tue Nov 23 19:03:00
>1993
From: Skelton, Tom" <TSkelton@engineer.clemsonsc.NCR.COM (Skelton, Tom)
Subject: CT and zone 23
Message-ID: <2CF25E71@admin.ClemsonSC.NCR.COM>
OK, I give up...how does CT know UA0Y is zone 23? I haven't
ever seen it in the CQWW.CTY file.
Inquiring minds want to know. 73, Tom WB4IUX
>From Peter Jennings <72470.3171@CompuServe.COM> Tue Nov 23 16:40:17 1993
From: Peter Jennings <72470.3171@CompuServe.COM> (Peter Jennings)
Subject: SS scores
Message-ID: <931123164017_72470.3171_FHG57-1@CompuServe.COM>
My first SS is over. I wasn't going to participate in this one
either but the guys at NCCC "made" me commit to some Qs for the
club score. Took the XYL to dinner on Saturday night and spent
6 hours doing antenna work on Sunday for the real contest next week.
Still worked a few:
962 Qs x 77 = 148,148
It was more fun than I expected. Got backup Qs in every section.
Was really happy to see so many 91,92,93 checks participating! Those
no-code techs are upgrading!
73
Peter AB6WM 72470.3171@compuserve.com
>From len@ariel.coe.neu.edu (Leonard Kay) Tue Nov 23 17:45:14 1993
From: len@ariel.coe.neu.edu (Leonard Kay) (Leonard Kay)
Subject: PACKET & THE SINGLE OP
Message-ID: <9311231745.AA05038@ariel.coe.neu.edu>
AB6FO said:
>> "Can you ask another operator on
>>the air if he has worked, say, Yukon, or Wyoming in Sweepstakes,
>>and if so, when and where?" I have decided it is okay to do this
>> .....
>>So now about my ethical dilemma.
>>Brief conversations with other operators, apart from the
>>exchange, about band openings and conditions, multipliers,
>>scores, etc., has always seemed to me to be part of the "buzz" of
>>a contest, which adds to the fun. I don't think this should be
>>restricted. Who to ask for information, and when, is part of the
>>contesting strategy.
I agree with Ken completely. I have *always* done this in SS since my
first entry in 1979. As he says, it's part of the 'buzz' of the contest.
I interpret being in the 'assisted' category as having access to information
that is *not* coming from the stations you're working.... does that make
any sense?
You know, you could extrapolate this situation to the extreme --
passing mutipliers in CQWW. If I work DX1DX on 20, and I tell him
'please work us now on 21.015', isn't that soliciting a contact by outside
means? I guess I consider these two scenarios somewhat equivalent.
You know, before the age of packet, this would have been a non-issue.....
Len KB2R
>From oo7@astro.as.utexas.edu (Derek Wills) Tue Nov 23 18:51:51 1993
From: oo7@astro.as.utexas.edu (Derek Wills) (Derek Wills)
Subject: PACKET & THE SINGLE OP
Message-ID: <9311231851.AA20120@astro.as.utexas.edu>
AB6FO says:
>>Brief conversations with other operators, apart from the
>>exchange, about band openings and conditions, multipliers,
>>scores, etc., has always seemed to me to be part of the "buzz" of
>>a contest, which adds to the fun. I don't think this should be
>>restricted. Who to ask for information, and when, is part of the
>>contesting strategy.
KB2R says:
I agree with Ken completely. I have *always* done this in SS since my
first entry in 1979. As he says, it's part of the 'buzz' of the contest.
I interpret being in the 'assisted' category as having access to
information that is *not* coming from the stations you're working....
does that make any sense?
I say:
If you deliberately ask a station whether they have heard the Yukon
on, and what frequency, I don't see how this differs from asking your
local buddy the same thing on the telephone, or querying your local
DX PacketCluster for the same information. Surely it's soliciting
information from other people during the contest?
Of course, if you are CQing away, and someone comes on frequency
and says "hey, would you mind QSYing a bit, there's a Yukon station
1 K below you", you would have to be pretty strong willed to ignore
the information. Still, you have to be strong willed to enter the
"unassisted category" in the first place, no?
Morally, I think I would draw the line at asking for information
during the contest, whether it is via packet, telephone or other
contestants. I wouldn't do it if I were "unassisted", but your
morals may vary.
Happy CQWW to all,
Derek AA5BT
>From Trey Garlough <GARLOUGH@TGV.COM> Tue Nov 23 19:03:59 1993
From: Trey Garlough <GARLOUGH@TGV.COM> (Trey Garlough)
Subject: late CQWW SSB return
Message-ID: <754081439.177154.GARLOUGH@TGV.COM>
K6GSS/KH6 1750/79/123 = 1.027M low power
>From Joel B Levin <levin@BBN.COM> Tue Nov 23 19:44:32 1993
From: Joel B Levin <levin@BBN.COM> (Joel B Levin)
Subject: PACKET & THE SINGLE OP
Message-ID: <6566.754083872@bbn.com>
| Of course, if you are CQing away, and someone comes on frequency
| and says "hey, would you mind QSYing a bit, there's a Yukon station
| 1 K below you", you would have to be pretty strong willed to ignore
| the information. Still, you have to be strong willed to enter the
| "unassisted category" in the first place, no?
And if I hear a station (let us say operating as multi) get current
information about a rare one from another contest, not eavesdropping
and I didn't ask for it, but because I just heard it while searching,
do you think I'm going to ignore it? Hearing that information that
information fortuitously is just as much chance as actually running
across that Yukon station.
| Morally, I think I would draw the line at asking for information
| during the contest, whether it is via packet, telephone or other
| contestants. I wouldn't do it if I were "unassisted", but your
| morals may vary.
So if you don't actually ask it's probably OK? :-)
|Derek AA5BT
/JBL KD1ON
>From oo7@astro.as.utexas.edu (Derek Wills) Tue Nov 23 20:57:04 1993
From: oo7@astro.as.utexas.edu (Derek Wills) (Derek Wills)
Subject: PACKET & THE SINGLE OP
Message-ID: <9311232057.AA25143@astro.as.utexas.edu>
>>Morally, I think I would draw the line at asking for information
>>during the contest, whether it is via packet, telephone or other
>>contestants. I wouldn't do it if I were "unassisted", but your
>>morals may vary.
>So if you don't actually ask it's probably OK? :-)
/JBL KD1ON
Exactly. If you make use of anything you hear during a contest, that
seems fair. If you start hearing JAs on the band, you might decide
that this was a good time to turn your beam in that direction and
run JAs. If you hear a lot of stations calling someone, you would
infer that there is a rare station there somewhere. That's obviously
no problem.
I just thought that asking other contesters where to look for a rare
one you need was stretching the "unassisted" description. Why is it
OK to ask someone on the air where to look for Zone 34, but not OK to
telephone someone in town and ask them the same thing?
Likewise, if your buddy in town had a packet station, and came by every
fews minutes to your run frequency and said "hey, JT is on 21023", you
wouldn't be unassisted.
So yes, unsolicited information is OK, solicited information is not.
I hardly ever do contests seriously, and very rarely send in logs, so
I am just pontificating here. Hey, he asked! My rule of thumb is
that if you don't plan to send in a log, anything legal goes. This
includes using your own call sign and the club call if you are at
the club station during a contest. It's FCC-legal, it gets another
cute card to hang on the club station wall. It's not contest-legal
if you are really competing against other people and were planning
to send in two logs.
I do it - so sue me! If I send in a log I follow the rules (at least
for the log I send in).
Next, someone will be claiming that this is only a hobby or something...
Derek AA5BT
>From Jim Reisert AD1C 23-Nov-1993 1425 <reisert@wrksys.enet.dec.com> Tue Nov
>23 19:21:23 1993
From: Jim Reisert AD1C 23-Nov-1993 1425 <reisert@wrksys.enet.dec.com> (Jim
Reisert AD1C 23-Nov-1993 1425)
Subject: CT version 8.47 on CT BBS
Message-ID: <9311231921.AA15036@us1rmc.bb.dec.com>
Ken has just put up version 8.47 on CT BBS. There are probably other bug
fixes, but the big ones are:
1. Super Check Partial window has been moved to the right. Check Countries
and Check Callsign windows are smaller. Now you can have Check Country
(for passing) and Check Partial windows open at same time!
2. CT Network with single COM port computers is fixed (ala 4M5I). You need
to add "-loop" to the CT command line if you're using networked
single-COM-port computers, otherwise the network will ping-pong itself
into oblivion. Network operation is unchanged for computers that us
multiple COM ports for networking.
3. When you backspace in the callsign field, deleting the final character
(clearing the callsign) also wipes out the zone field. This way, you
don't have a "left-over" zone which will be incorrect for the next
callsign you log.
4. CT crash resulting from hitting F2 on a blank log using the DVP has been
fixed.
BBS # is 508-460-8877. CTY files dated 11/22/93 are up there also, and you
will get them automatically when you download the CT update.
73 - Jim AD1C
>From Edward Parish <parish@Think.COM> Tue Nov 23 21:54:15 1993
From: Edward Parish <parish@Think.COM> (Edward Parish)
Subject: PACKET & THE SINGLE OP
Message-ID: <9311232154.AA02265@thor.think.com>
I just thought that asking other contesters where to look for a rare
one you need was stretching the "unassisted" description. Why is it
OK to ask someone on the air where to look for Zone 34, but not OK to
telephone someone in town and ask them the same thing?
^^^^^^^^^
I am not advocating either side, but the rules (if you intend on
participating in the contest) do state that soliciting contacts by means
other than amateur radio is prohibited. That's where the difference is.
Whether soliciting on the air qualifies you as multi-op, well, you can keep
discussing it...
>From jayt" <jayt@comtch.iea.com Wed Nov 24 00:23:39 1993
From: jayt" <jayt@comtch.iea.com (jayt)
Subject: Soliciting
Message-ID: <m0p281D-0001ftC@comtch.iea.com>
It seems to me that the discussion on locating mults is quite different from
soliciting contacts. The rules are clear enough that soliciting contacts by
means other than amateur radio is prohibited. Which conversly means that
using amateur radio to solicit contacts is fine. So calling CQ is
soliciting a contact. Firing up the cq-contest reflector during the contest
and begging for that Wyoming or Eastern Washington is not within the rules.
Now the seeking of information during a contest to get a multiplier is to me
rather different. I am not sure but it sounds like an announce on the
Packetcluster of A K7SS is on 14.333.33 work him by K7SS would be OK.
Clearly if Danny were a single Op getting spots on Packet would be
assistance and not fair, but if he cruises down the band and asks everyone
"where is wyoming", is this assistance. I think so. It isn't, however,
solicitation.
Glad I run M/S.
1993 SS on SSB
WS7I (WA7EGA + WB7AVD)
1565 with a sweep of 77 for a raw of 241,010
--
Jay Townsend, Ws7i < jayt@comtch.iea.com >
>From Dan Reese <76300.331@CompuServe.COM> Tue Nov 23 21:31:44 1993
From: Dan Reese <76300.331@CompuServe.COM> (Dan Reese)
Subject: N9XX little score, big sweep
Message-ID: <931123213144_76300.331_CHL111-1@CompuServe.COM>
N9XX (WI) Multi-op (me and PacketCluster):
128 Q 77 M First sweep for me on phone.
TS-850S/AT barefoot, Cushcraft AV-5 trap vert. 80-10 meters.
Small QSO total due mostly to operating SOD (single-op distracted -
love it!) Worked most mults by S&P solo Saturday aft/eve and Sunday
wee hours, then spent most of Sunday afternoon in family room, with the
family, with a long serial wire to TNC in shack. Used the MS-Windows
TERMINAL program to display spots in 48 point text for across-the-room
visibility, waiting for the needed ones to come up (VE6, KH6, VE2,
KL7, KP4 - in that order). I was lucky - they did. Got NP4Z on 15
meters for the last one. Heck of a way to work a sweep, but could not
have done it without the cluster. This was really my only goal this
time around. CQing has never produced much in the way of runs or mults
for me phone weekend. CW weekend is quite another matter. The red mug
will look nice next to last year's blue CW mug.
73, Dan N9XX
>From Trey Garlough <GARLOUGH@TGV.COM> Wed Nov 24 00:38:34 1993
From: Trey Garlough <GARLOUGH@TGV.COM> (Trey Garlough)
Subject: administrative note
Message-ID: <754101514.924154.GARLOUGH@TGV.COM>
I'm skipping out to operate CQWW CW from HC5K, or HC2RG, or HC1OT, depending
on how things go. I'll be using one of those callsigns, or a callsign like
HC5N or so.
Hopefully the cq-contest-request robot will continue to handle subscription
signups and signoffs in my absence, but administrative mail directed to me
will go unanswered until I return as there is not a large Internet presence
in Ecuador (yet).
See you on the bands.
--Trey, WN4KKN/6
>From k2mm@MasPar.COM (John Zapisek) Wed Nov 24 02:34:13 1993
From: k2mm@MasPar.COM (John Zapisek) (John Zapisek)
Subject: Damn, I Coulda Had a VE8!
Message-ID: <9311240234.AA06620@greylock.local>
For as long as I've been operating SS -- intermittently since 1968 -- I
remember it being traditional to ask any KL7 or VE you work late in the
contest, "Hey, where's the VE8?"
Well, things do change, and the rising popularity of packet sure changed
things a lot. Wittness Dan/N9XX being able to get a sweep making only 128
low-power Q's -- with the help of packet. The current rules defining
"single-op unassisted" are clearly a reaction intended to prohibit Single
Ops from using packet. I suspect there was little consideration about how
the casual "Where's VE8?" situation would be affected by the change.
You know how committees can get. It wasn't enough to just say what they
wanted: "Single Ops cannot use packet." Too easy for somebody to weasel
his way around it. No, the new rules had to be watertight. Unfortunately,
an overly literal interpretation would put you in the multi-op category if
your wife adjusted the thermostat because it was too hot in the shack.
David/XE1/AA6RX's posting referred to a poignant NCJ editorial by Tom/K5RC
that well illustrated the absurdity of indulgent self-righteousness in the
interpretation of the rules. The message that I came away with from that
editorial was that it's important to have a sense of proportion about these
things. So I ask you to consider the quantitative difference between
asking one op about VE8 the one time you work him, and having your finger
continuously on the pulse of dozens or hundreds of packeteers scanning the
bands on your behalf. Does this huge quantitative difference count for
anything? Here's a hint: don't ask a lawyer.
Anyway, it's something to think about. 73. --John/K2MM
|