[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] cheating with packet

To: KI9A@aol.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] cheating with packet
From: Julius Fazekas <phriendly1@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 19:23:54 -0800 (PST)
List-post: <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
Using the computer in the fashion you present is still
just me, not 10,000 eyes plotting the bands... I still
have to type the info in correctly (and that is a
challenge at times) You can do all you describe with
most recent transceivers as far as CQing and sending
exchanges. Computer logging is a convenience, but it
is not a multiplier or QSO generator.

Your point is well taken tho'.. why not go further?
Let's see 599 is a given... 

Your computer can easily decide where a station is for
multiplier purposes...

A sharp programmer could develop a program to look at
all the spots, compare it to who you already have in
the log, decide which is best to go after, say a
zone/DXCC versus just one or the other, et voila start
keying and move you on to the spot. The state of code
recognition may soon be good enough to spot you call
and log it for you. No need for the op to actually
spend the better part of the weekend in the chair.

So do you want to compete against that hypothetical
station, with say your current capability?

There's nothing wrong with using packet spot, if
you're assisted. It's got nothing to do with being in
the 21st Century. It's about philosophy. If you want
to compete using packet, have a blast but don't force
me to do the same.

I want to continue to play with the guys who are out
looking for the multipliers, taking a crap shoot that
10 is going to be open around 1PM because they put the
time in to learn the bands, or are just plain lucky

You know, there are some that do still do SS, and
other contests as you suggest and have fun doing so.
Maybe we should ban paper logs now and get it over

I would also posit that there are still many who do
not have web access or only have a dial-up connection,
and not necessarily by choice either.

Once again, nothing wrong with packet in the assisted
categories, but not in the unassisted categories.
There's plenty of room for both, but they aren't the


--- KI9A@aol.com wrote:

> Doesn't make much sense, what you just wrote.  1) do
> you use computers  to 
> log? 2) how do you send cw? Is it via the computer F
> keys while contesting,  or, 
> do you send the SS exchange 1,000 by hand?
> If you answer yes to either of those questions,
> maybe you are indeed  playing 
> doom.
> It's time some get into the 21st century.  What is
> so bad about using  packet 
> spots? Legally? There are always cheaters.  Cheaters
> that cheat on  time. 
> Cheaters on post-contest log grooming, cheaters that
> cheat on power. Why  not 
> eliminate one of the ways a guy can cheat? It's
> easy. to allow packet, very  
> tough to regulate the other cheats.
> Computer games...yeah, right. Oh, I forgot, some do
> actually paper log, and  
> dupe, and send the SS exchange via a bug, right?
> 73-Chuck
> In a message dated 12/11/2007 8:07:27 P.M. Central
> Standard Time,  
> phriendly1@yahoo.com writes:
> If I  wanted to play computer games, I'd go back to
> DOOM, much better graphics  even for an "ancient"
> game.
> Heck I can play it when I want, no band  conditions
> to
> worry about and it's a heck of a lot cheaper... 
> That's
> just me, and probably at least a couple  others...
> **************************************See AOL's top
> rated recipes 

Julius Fazekas
Elecraft K2/100 #3311
Elecraft K2/100 #4455
CQ-Contest mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>