First and least important the semantics are DXPacket Cluster sometimes
shortened to DX Cluster. No where is the word telnet used except for the
software call DXTelnet.
Now for the important stuff: I have been licensed as long as you have been
alive. I point that out to show I've participated in many many contests before
packet clusters were even invented. Believe it or not contest participation was
just fine prior to packet clusters. Hams have a very bad habit of repeating
what they hear and claim it to be a fact. You said: """". There is no proof of
that, it is a statement that has been made in defense for using the clusters
during contests. I think the first time I heard it was on this mailing list 6
or 7 years ago. It was a statement, not based in fact, then just as it is
today. It has been used/misused so often everyone thinks it is some kind of
fact. Contest scores are up and new records set not because of packet clusters
but because equipment and operators are better now.
Why are you, and others, so against a one (1) weekend moratorium experiment? Is
it just possible I could be right and contesting would survive just fine, once
again, without the cluster network.
MAL N7MAL
BULLHEAD CITY, AZ
http://www.ctaz.com/~suzyq/N7mal.htm
http://geocities.com/n7mal/
Don't worry about the world coming to an end today.
It's already tomorrow in Australia
----- Original Message -----
From: Barry
To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Sent: Friday, December 16, 2005 12:41
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Log checking questions
First, an issue of semantics. I don't use packet. I use telnet. Not
many use packet any more...
Second, to the issue at hand.
Mark - if all single ops were permitted to use DX spotting assistance,
how would that hurt you? You call it a crutch. That implies an
impairment. Perhaps you're correct, as year after year, most top ten SO
scores are higher than SOA scores. If the SOs score higher, how would
"packet" use harm your effort?
There's no way the DX spotting network could or should be disabled for a
contest. It stimulates activity by the casual op, looking to make a few
QSOs or pick up a few new band-countries, etc. It's the casual ops that
make the big contests what they are. Do you really want CQWW to become
a contest with participation similar to a Sprint - with only a core
group of regulars?
73,
Barry W2UP
Mark Beckwith wrote:
>I appreciate your post, MAL, thanks.
>
>My post was pretty much to say that if the sponsors allow unrestricted
packet use at all times by all competitors as you propose, I would not be
interested in playing that game. That's all. I'm pretty sure I'm not alone.
>
>That said, I disagree that contests' sponsors are choosing to do nothing
because of a revenue stream, rather that there are only 24 hours in a day and
quite correctly they have chosen to fry bigger fish and avoid the headache.
You may recall in the 90s when some far-seeing individuals like yourself
proposed that everyone turn in their logs electronically you were met with
"it'll never happen." Such is the way of ham radio contests. 10 years from
now, when it's trivial to bust packet cheaters in a way everyone agrees is a
no-brainer, this conversation will finally be over and people entering
unassisted won't be cheating, and people using packet will be understanding the
are on crutches and that some of them can actually run if they will only give
it a try.
>
>MAL, you're just ahead of your time, that's all. Take it from ME, it's
frustrating to know all the answers :)
>
>Mark, N5OT
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: N7MAL
> To: Mark Beckwith ; cq-contest@contesting.com
> Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 11:24 PM
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Log checking questions
>
>
> Mark right now every contest you enter you are entering against guys using
'crutches', many many guys. Over the years the contest sponsors have had a
great many opportunities to 'bust' the cheaters but they won't/don't. N6TJ and
I and others have brought this up several times over the past few years and
nothing, absolutely nothing, gets done about it. I have cited obvious cheaters
from my own logs, during SS, and nothing has changed. As long as the contest
sponsors first priority is revenue, from their magazines, cheating will
continue. You will get no help from the contest sponsors. Oh they say they
aggressively pursue cheating but talk is cheap, actions speak louder than words.
> Several months ago, when this subject came up, I suggested a one(1)
contest weekend moratorium on the packet so the scores could be analyzed to
determine the impact on packet cheating. You would have thought I had shot
someone's dog. I was attacked viciously both publicly and privately. The packet
cheaters couldn't go one(1) contest without packet and apparently neither can
one packet sysop, K1TTT who publicly attacked me.
>
> Anyone who knows me knows how strongly I feel against using packet during
contests. I wish there were an alternative but after fighting it for so many
years there seems to be no solution other than to make it a 'free-for-all'. I
will take comfort in knowing every contact in my log I found on my own without
any outside help.
>
> I guess some of us are part of a dying breed, we actually know what a
contest means and how to operate in a contest without cheating.
>
>
> MAL N7MAL
> BULLHEAD CITY, AZ
> http://www.ctaz.com/~suzyq/N7mal.htm
> http://geocities.com/n7mal/
> Don't worry about the world coming to an end today.
> It's already tomorrow in Australia
>_______________________________________________
>CQ-Contest mailing list
>CQ-Contest@contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
>
>
--
Barry Kutner, W2UP
Newtown, PA
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|