I believe your comments are directed at me... First and (agreed) least
important - packet and telnet are methods of connection to the network
of DX Clusters. /PacketCluster^(TM) /was the name of AK1A's software.
Orignally, there was another name (which I don't recall), but that was
when it was stand-alone, prior to linking of the nodes. I happened to
live in NH about 10 miles from AK1A's first node in 1986 when he first
put his software on 2m for DX spotting info. Prior to the Internet,
Packet Radio was the way to connect to it. Since the advent of the
Internet, and many clones of /PacketCluster^(TM) /software, telnet
connections are much more common than Packet Radio connections. Enough
history...
You want a "packet"-free contest. I have no problem with that. There
already are "packet"-free contests. I plan on operating the RTTY Roundup
next month without connecting to the Cluster. Why? Because if I use it,
I'm considered a multi-op. Also, the number of mults are limited (once
per contest like SS, not per band) so it really doesn't make much of a
difference. However, there's no way to turn off the Cluster around the
world for an existing contest where its use is popular.
Barry, W2UP
N7MAL wrote:
> 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://www.ctaz.com/%7Esuzyq/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 <mailto:w2up@mindspring.com>
> *To:* cq-contest@contesting.com <mailto: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
> <mailto: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://www.ctaz.com/%7Esuzyq/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 <mailto: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
|