[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] cheating with packet

To: "'DL8MBS'" <prickler.schneider@t-online.de>,"'Yuri VE3DZ'" <ve3dz@rigexpert.net>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] cheating with packet
From: "Sandy Taylor" <ve4xt@mts.net>
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 08:53:58 -0600
List-post: <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
Hi all,
In another private email with my Irish friend, it became clear that a
distinction needs to be made:

If you are using this thread as an opportunity to rail against packet,
that's one thing. I'm disinterested in that argument. Want to end packet?
Fine. Won't happen, but on the slim chance it did, it won't end my life,
either. So I don't say any of this to be "the one true defender of the
status quo."

But the distinction between SO (A) and multiop is pretty simple: those
feeding spots on the cluster cannot transport themselves to your shack to
take over whilst you pee, eat or sleep. In SO (A), you're still the only one
whose butt can be in the chair. True multiop brings with it a host of
advantages not available to any single op, assisted or not. Those being
relief operating, longer contesting times in certain contests, multiplier
stations in certain contests, camaraderie, etc. So SO (A) is a good
compromise between the truly unassisted single ops and the truly
multioperator stations.

The question posed was why SO (A) isn't actually multiop. That's why. Now it
appears there were ulterior motives in asking that question. So be it.

But the answer to the question at face value is pretty simple. The larger
issue will continue to be debated. Pointlessly, I believe, simply because of
the inertia behind spotting (much of it coming from outside contesting). The
existence of spotting does not bother me. It's extinction would not either.
Just as long as everyone using it is honest about it.

(Even if the advantages of cheating with it are in question.)


-----Original Message-----
From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
[mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of DL8MBS
Sent: December-21-07 1:44 AM
To: Yuri VE3DZ
Cc: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] cheating with packet

Yuri VE3DZ wrote:

>SINGLE OPERATOR ... He might operate his station using spots coming from
his computer (Assisted) 
The spots are coming from his computer???? Where can I buy one of this 
machines? But this (strange) notion of a "truth machine" independent of 
people still feeding it seems to be associated with any newsfeed 
displayed by computers. Working at a news agency I regularly learn from 
our customers the credibility advantage of the computer-based feed. An 
individual reporter of a media on site has big problems with his media 
when the agency ("truth machine from the computer" but regularly not on 
site with an individual) delivers differing material compared to his 
firsthand informations. Sometimes it even happens that the media prefers 
the agency-material over its correpondent´s first hand informations - 
which is normally as bad a practice as logging a P5-qso because a 
P5-spot "came from your computer".

Until forced to believe otherwise I believe that OPERATING means also to 
find signals on the band and identify the call signs. If this is done by 
others and you use their delivered info an important part of operating 
is not done alone by you as operator claiming to be the single one doing 
all parts of operating (it´s neither bad nor unskilled but not single 
operating). Does repeating this make me now an OF automatically?

Best 73, Chris


CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest mailing list

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