>
>
> Can someone detail how me or others running packet has any impact on any
> other competitor? What am I missing here? I get the packet pile up but rare
> mults always have pileups.
Hi Mike,
I remember the days before packet, and yes, the rare mults had pileups. But
they grew organically. If you happened to be among the early ones in the
pileup, you had a chance, and it built slowly. If you were on the other end,
you also had a chance to manage it so it didn’t expand beyond your capacity
(not every DX is an N6MJ clone…).
Today, with one spot, it’s an instant 10 KHz wall of sound. Many of those in
the wall are wise, respectable operators and a handful are of the idiot
variety, who either don’t verify the spot before calling or decide “I’m too
important to be smart, so I’m just going to keep sending my call right at zero
beat until he answers. Oh, he’s listening up? Too bad. I’m too important for
split.” Packet also makes it easier for people to be adding to the QRM even
when their focus is on a run frequency elsewhere, so it undoubtedly adds to the
pileup that way, as well. (Though I will admit that’s also possible with
unassisted SO2R.)
That’s the difference.
The other question is this: if the goal is to work more QSOs and more mults
than anyone else, why do you want to tell everyone else where you just found
the VK0?
There’s also the potential for tampering, though I don’t know if it’s ever
happened; "Oh, W0MU is running on 14.045… let’s spot a P51 there to mess with
his rate…"
Am I saying we should put the genie back in the bottle? No.
But it’s not correct to say packet has no adverse effect on other operators.
73, kelly, ve4xt
> ook at 3830 (which is only a fraction of the actual
>> entrants) you'll see many multiops that only list one operator.(mostly the
>> LP gang I think)
>>
>> True, I suppose its possible some of the fellows filling in the 3830 form
>> simply forgot to list all the guys at the station that night. (unlikely, but
>> could happen)
>>
>>
>> Others, however, are apparently of the belief that a Multiop means single op
>> + packet. (guess they never read the rules or are creating/justifying their
>> own rules somehow in their mind)
>>
>>
>> I certainly do not speak for the Boring ARC , nor the SP contest,. but if my
>> ears are to be believed (packet pileups last night) along with 3830 posts
>> and misinformed (but perhaps well intended) posts like the ones I see from
>> W0MU, then it would appear at first glance that either folks are using
>> packet and just putting themselves in a multiop category because they
>> believe that's what they are supposed to do (per ARRL convention) or
>> something else I have not yet thought of.
>>
>>
>> Disappointed? Yes.
>>
>> Surprised? Sadly, no not really.
>>
>>
>> Part of the problem may be the way the rules are written or they are
>> becoming watered down. I snipped this from the logs rec'd page mere moments
>> ago. Look for the word assisted:
>>
>>
>> "2016 STEW PERRY
>>
>>
>> This report generated on Sunday, 18-Dec-16 at 14:58.
>>
>>
>>
>> Total logs = 436
>>
>>
>> C = Category (CheckLog, Multi or Single). ASSISTED classified as Multi.."
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Mike VE9AA FN66
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Mike, Coreen & Corey
>>
>> Keswick Ridge, NB
>>
>>
>> From: Ken K6MR [mailto:k6mr@outlook.com]
>> Sent: December 18, 2016 8:08 PM
>> To: Mike Smith VE9AA; cq-contest@contesting.com
>> Subject: RE: [CQ-Contest] Stew Contest and Multi Op/packet
>>
>>
>> Mike:
>>
>>
>> Rule 6. Seems pretty plain to me. Packet is not allowed for single op, and
>> discouraged for Multi op. Local skimmers appear to be ok, but grudgingly.
>>
>>
>> SP appears to be an attempt to hold on to "Boy and his Radio" (copyright
>> K0HB) contesting. Kinda like Stew did himself, as I read the history.
>>
>>
>> Fine by me.
>>
>>
>> Ken K6MR
>>
>>
>> From: Mike Smith VE9AA <mailto:ve9aa@nbnet.nb.ca>
>> Sent: Sunday, December 18, 2016 1:10 PM
>> To: cq-contest@contesting.com
>> Subject: [CQ-Contest] Stew Contest and Multi Op/packet
>>
>>
>> The Stew Perry contest is not an ARRL event, so entering in Multi Op does
>> not mean "Single Op + Packet"
>>
>> I was surprised at a few mini packet pileups I had last night. Now I know
>> why.
>>
>>
>> After reviewing the DX Cluster today and reading 3830 it's apparent nobody
>> reads rules anymore.
>>
>>
>> In all fairness, there were a couple guys using skimmer/telnet/cluster
>> submitting properly as checklogs as they were chasing new countries or
>> whatever.
>>
>>
>> I would suggest to the Boring Club to clarify this point in the multi op
>> rules. (ie: Multi Op does not mean Single Op + Packet).
>>
>>
>> Mike VE9AA
>>
>>
>> Mike, Coreen & Corey
>>
>> Keswick Ridge, NB
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|