Why should the clusters be turned off? There are legal classes for packet.
I think packet allows a great number of non serious hams to get in the
contest and work new countries and make contacts that they might not
The problem is not with the technology or packet it is with the cheating
operators. If we take a more authoritative stance and start outing the
cheaters and getting them DQed would be a great start.
Prior to packet there were 2m spotting nets. I am sure everyone turned off
their 2m rigs during the contest right??!! The use of spotting nets is even
more difficult to track than packet.
The cheating is not just limited to packet. Plenty of stations abuse the
power limits, HP, LP or QRP. How about multiple signals per band and after
contest log massaging and adding in all your friends calls to your log
whether you worked them or not.
From: Dick-w0raa [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 8:50 AM
To: Mike Fatchett W0MU
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Why not turn off the clusters during contests?
Has anybody given thought to asking the people who own/operate the various
clusters, to voluntarily shut them down during contest periods? What did we
do before there were clusters and packet? We fouind stations to work, the
old fashioned way. We turned the knob and looked for them. God forbid we
should have to do that today. What a horrible thought.
So, why not just get all of them to voluntarily turn them off at the onset
of a contest and then turn them back on at the end of the contest? I think
it's doable, so why not do it? Then we'd find out if these big gun winners
are as big gunned as they claim to be. It's certainly worth considering.
Also, all contests should be limited to 100 watts. Now there's where the
cheating would go. Cheaters would be saying: "Me, more than 100 watts? Not
me, I follow the rules!"
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Fatchett W0MU" <email@example.com>
To: "Randy Thompson" <firstname.lastname@example.org>; "Untitled"
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 4:43 PM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] cheating with packet
> Assisted seems to have less competitors which translates to higher
> I most cases if you are chasing spots you are probably not winning. Run
> run run run.
> On 12/12/07 4:37 PM, "Randy Thompson" <email@example.com> wrote:
>> Because some of us still like to do things the old fashioned way. All by
>> ourselves! And we like the fact that we can compete in a category with
>> other people who feel the same way. Even makes it more fun when we can
>> the packet assisted guys.
>> I am against combining them because I like to be recognized as a guy who
>> knows how to operate.
>> I wouldn't mind if they were combined because then all the SOA guys who
>> think they are competitive will realize that packet does not a winning
>> Randy, K5ZD
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: firstname.lastname@example.org
>>> [mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf Of Yuri VE3DZ
>>> Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 7:08 PM
>>> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
>>> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] cheating with packet
>>> I don't like Dx Cluster, but the reality is - like it or not
>>> - almost everyone is using it nowadays, one way or another. I
>>> mean 99.9 % of the HAM stations have the capability of using
>>> Dx Cluster today.
>>> So, why not just allow it for all categories, like it was
>>> done for WAE or Russian DX long time ago?
>>> What are we afraid of here?
>>> Yuri VE3DZ
>>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest mailing list