With all respect Ria, your statement said that they would likely be flagged as
invalid. Your next statement says that the rules say they are invalid but they
won’t be likely flagged. I agree with you on the intent but not on the likely
flagged.
DXCC wasn’t even $75 back in the day – but it didn’t stop some stations from
floating out in the water and claiming they were on land. Its about ego, its
not about money.
I think that it’s a mistake to not allow automated Qs on the DX side. Just
don’t allow the DX side station to apply for DXCC. But at least their
automated bot can be a service to the rest of the DX community.
Ed N1UR
From: rjairam@gmail.com [mailto:rjairam@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, August 16, 2019 4:38 PM
To: Edward Sawyer
Cc: AB2E Darrell; CQ Contest; David Gilbert; Zack Widup
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Impact of FT* Modes on DXpeditions
Ed,
I know you’re trying to say we can’t catch a determined cheater but that’s not
the intent.
The intent is to discourage the practice and draw the line.
Enforcement is just like contest enforcement. “Everybody knows” some contesters
run lots of power. “Everybody knows” some cheat with cluster and assistance (in
unassisted categories).
We don’t simply abandon those rules.
Instead we hope participants abide by the rules voluntarily. And yes, some will
be caught because they are brazen about it. But we hope everyone will respect
the rules and play fair.
Why cheat for a piece of paper and a $75 wood plaque?
Ria
N2RJ
On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 3:17 PM Edward Sawyer
<EdwardS@sbelectronics.com<mailto:EdwardS@sbelectronics.com>> wrote:
Good Luck with that.
Ed N1UR
-----Original Message-----
From: CQ-Contest
[mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com<mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com>]
On Behalf Of rjairam@gmail.com<mailto:rjairam@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, August 16, 2019 12:35 PM
To: AB2E Darrell
Cc: David Gilbert; Zack Widup; CQ Contest
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Impact of FT* Modes on DXpeditions
Such QSOs will not be counted. They are likely to be flagged as invalid under
the rules.
Ria
N2RJ
On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 12:30 PM AB2E Darrell
<ab2e@hotmail.com<mailto:ab2e@hotmail.com>> wrote:
> There's an ad for fully automated software for ft4/8 today on one of
> the portals. It also has the warning not to be operated
> unattended(violation of FCC rules).
> So Zack and Dave, I agree with both of you, there should be a separate
> DXCC award for this mode of operating and it should not count towards
> traditional dxcc award.
> Which brings to mind a related topic, if the software makes possible
> robotic qsos from a dxpedition, should those qsos be counted as
> valid(if unattended and op watching)?
>
> 73 Darrell AB2E
> ________________________________
> From: CQ-Contest
> <cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com<mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com>>
> on behalf of
> David Gilbert <xdavid@cis-broadband.com<mailto:xdavid@cis-broadband.com>>
> Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2019 7:35:53 PM
> To: Zack Widup <w9sz.zack@gmail.com<mailto:w9sz.zack@gmail.com>>; CQ Contest <
> cq-contest@contesting.com<mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>>
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Impact of FT* Modes on DXpeditions
>
>
> Neither FT8 nor FT4 are fully automatic using WSJT-X or JTDX. I'm not
> sure which app you were using (there are others), but both of those
> two require the operator to initiate each CQ and each QSO by default.
> Yes, there are people who have written scripts to make QSOs automatic,
> but unless you were using something like that your contacts were not
> automatic. Neither WSJT-X nor JTDX have a menu option for full
> automatic operation.
>
> And if you're trying to optimize rates in an FT4 contest, you have to
> be almost constantly doing something.
>
> 73,
> Dave AB7E
>
>
> On 8/15/2019 7:07 AM, Zack Widup wrote:
> > Some of you may have seen the postings elsewhere that ARRL will no
> > longer admit fully automatic QSO's for contest and DXCC credit (CQ's
> > and QSO initiation are fully automatic, with no operator
> > intervention). I am guessing this primarily affects FT8 operation. I
> > have not operated much
> FT8
> > but the operation I did was fully automatic. I am guessing there is
> > a way to set it to semi-automatic operation (a real operator
> > initiates each CQ and each QSO) (which is a valid QSO for those
> > awards). And I don't know
> how
> > how they would tell. But the ruling stands.
> >
> > 73, Zack W9SZ
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 8:08 AM robert
> > <wa1fcn@charter.net<mailto:wa1fcn@charter.net>> wrote:
> >
> >> GM Matts/Yuri
> >>
> >> I agree with you about the ARRL's DXCC credit system.
> >>
> >> A mistake for sure. As a life long low power operator it
> >> has
> >>
> >> taken me 54 years to reach 40 meter DXCC of 280. By
> >> allowing
> >>
> >> FT8 credits mixed in with every thing I foresee in the
> >> near future,
> >>
> >> many achieving this in 10 years or less of effort. At the
> >> next sun spot
> >>
> >> cycle peak high DXCC totals on 10, 12, and 15 will be
> >> meaningless. I
> >>
> >> know of hams who no longer take part in DXCC for just
> >> this reason.
> >>
> >> FT8 credit for DXCC is fine, but keep it separated from
> >> single band/mixed
> >>
> >> mode totals.
> >>
> >> 74 BoB WA1FCN
> >>
> >> On 8/15/2019 1:30 AM, Mats Strandberg wrote:
> >>> I tend to agree with Yury.
> >>>
> >>> CY9 was much more balanced between modes, than the 3D2 (or least
> >>> that
> was
> >>> my perception).
> >>>
> >>> It might be so that at the time of John’s (GD) participation in
> >>> KP5 and KP1, that there was no ambition to maximize the revenue
> >>> through
> donations
> >>> (before, during and after the expedition). I don’t question that.
> >>>
> >>> However, since FT8 appeared as an equal mode for DXCC (along with
> CW,SSB
> >>> and RTTY), it definitely has changed some expeditions into
> >>> becoming automated QSO/QSL-creating machines...
> >>>
> >>> John, during KP1/KP5, the FT modes were not available, so
> >>> comparison
> >> might
> >>> not be fully relevant.
> >>>
> >>> It is maybe good that FT8 will bring new “DXers” to the table, but
> >>> the appearance of this dull mode... has forever changed the
> >>> feeling of
> “being
> >>> on the other side of the expedition”, and most likely also, being
> >>> an operator of that expedition as well.
> >>>
> >>> I question myself, what is the pleasure of being that rare DX,
> >>> giving
> out
> >>> the ATNOs and the new band points, when the reality is that NO
> >>> operator skills are required from me to make those “contacts” happen!
> >>>
> >>> Before, good DX-expeditions we’re separated by less good ones,
> >>> because
> of
> >>> operator skills. How wonderful was it not to listen to great
> >>> operators, handling thousand of callers, to maximize the number of
> >>> contacts and
> >> happy
> >>> DXers on the other side?
> >>>
> >>> Those days were interesting and a memory of our past. The new FT8
> >> euphoria
> >>> has forever changed the perception of DX-big, thanks to ARRL’s
> >>> greed
> for
> >>> award revenue ;(
> >>>
> >>> And, what we now see is the result of the wrong decision to
> >>> equalize
> FTx,
> >>> JT and other artificial modes, with RTTY, SSB and CW, and accept
> >>> them
> for
> >>> DXCC Mixed.
> >>>
> >>> The correct way would have been to create FT/JT DXCC separate from
> >> Classic
> >>> DXCC...
> >>>
> >>> DXCC as we all knew it, has been hurt tremendously by ARRL
> >>> unthoughtful decision to accept FT/JT in Mixed!
> >>>
> >>> 73 de RM2D (Mats)
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, 15 Aug 2019 at 05:14, John Crovelli
> >>> <w2gd@hotmail.com<mailto:w2gd@hotmail.com>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I want to take a moment to dispel the notion suggested by Yuri
> >>>> that DXpedition operating strategy is all about financial considerations.
> It
> >>>> simply isn't for well planned operations.
> >>>>
> >>>> It is the intent of virtually every DXpedition to provide an
> opportunity
> >>>> for those running 100 watts or more to work an ATNO. DXpeditions
> teams
> >> are
> >>>> constantly considering ways to reach the broadest possible
> >>>> audience
> >> while
> >>>> on site.
> >>>>
> >>>> The implication that operating strategy and mode selection is all
> about
> >>>> post operation donations (to cover costs) is just not true. Well
> >> organized
> >>>> teams have these issues resolved well in advance.
> >>>>
> >>>> I've been on some large DXpeditions (KP5 and KP1 - both were top
> >>>> ten world). Our operating teams NEVER set goals based upon
> >>>> donations, and
> >> in
> >>>> fact, this issue was never even discussed since no one felt it to
> >>>> be important. Again, financing issues were resolved well before
> >>>> we ever departed for the islands.
> >>>>
> >>>> We did however (on a daily basis) take stock of propagation,
> >>>> probably
> of
> >>>> openings, and how we were providing global coverage ... to
> >>>> prevent
> >> missing
> >>>> opportunities to those regions traditionally most difficult. As
> >>>> a
> tool,
> >>>> FT8 can be useful.
> >>>>
> >>>> FT8 modes are providing options not previously available and for
> >>>> the
> >> most
> >>>> part now replaces RTTY activity. It is my expectation CW and SSB
> will
> >>>> always be the main modes for DXpeditions.
> >>>>
> >>>> John, W2GD aka P40W/P44W
> >>>>
> >>>> ________________________________
> >>>> From: CQ-Contest
> >>>> <cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com<mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com>>
> >>>> on behalf of
> Yuri
> >> <
> >>>> ve3dz@rigexpert.net<mailto:ve3dz@rigexpert.net>>
> >>>> Sent: Wednesday, August 7, 2019 4:57 PM
> >>>> To: 'Jeff Clarke' <ku8e@ku8e.com<mailto:ku8e@ku8e.com>>;
> >>>> cq-contest@contesting.com<mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com> <
> >>>> cq-contest@contesting.com<mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>>
> >>>> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] WW-Digi Contest -- Rule Clarification
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> Seems like the last two big Dxpeditions (CY9 and 3D2) are
> >>>>>>> putting
> FT8
> >>>> first before the traditional CW/SSB modes. I sure hope this isn't
> >>>> the future of ham radio.
> >>>>
> >>>> I might not be politically correct, but why not to mention that
> >>>> one of
> >> the
> >>>> all of the DXpeditions' goals is to try to maximize the overall
> >>>> QSO
> >> count
> >>>> in order to get more donation? That's what hiding behind "best
> >>>> kept
> >> secret"
> >>>> (that everybody knows) of F/H mode in FT8 in my opinion.
> >>>> I'm not saying it's bad or good, but it's a fact.
> >>>> Multi-channel streams need to be prohibited, otherwise it looks
> >>>> like hypocrisy.
> >>>> I still remember how the rules for M/S in the ARRL Contests were
> changed
> >>>> under the pressure after PJ4G(?) team managed to have 2 stations
> >>>> on
> the
> >>>> same band (even not at the same time).
> >>>>
> >>>> Yuri VE3DZ
> >>>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: CQ-Contest
> >>>> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com<mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com>]
> >>>> On
> >>>> Behalf
> >> Of
> >>>> Jeff Clarke
> >>>> Sent: Wednesday, August 7, 2019 10:51 AM
> >>>> To: cq-contest@contesting.com<mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
> >>>> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] WW-Digi Contest -- Rule Clarification
> >>>>
> >>>> Didn't someone create a FT8 contest reflector? It would be nice
> >>>> to
> take
> >>>> all these comments over there. Seems like FT8 is monopolizing the
> >> contest
> >>>> reflector just like it is on the air.
> >>>>
> >>>> Seems like the last two big Dxpeditions (CY9 and 3D2) are putting
> >>>> FT8 first before the traditional CW/SSB modes. I sure hope this
> >>>> isn't the future of ham radio.
> >>>>
> >>>> BTW I do operate some FT8 because I'm working on a the digital DXCC.
> >>>> (because there is hardly any RTTY activity outside of contests)
> >>>> Now
> that
> >>>> I've reached 100 countries I'm starting to get bored with it.
> >>>>
> >>>> Jeff
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> CQ-Contest mailing list
> >>>> CQ-Contest@contesting.com<mailto:CQ-Contest@contesting.com>
> >>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> CQ-Contest mailing list
> >>>> CQ-Contest@contesting.com<mailto:CQ-Contest@contesting.com>
> >>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> >>>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> CQ-Contest mailing list
> >>> CQ-Contest@contesting.com<mailto:CQ-Contest@contesting.com>
> >>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> CQ-Contest mailing list
> >> CQ-Contest@contesting.com<mailto:CQ-Contest@contesting.com>
> >> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> >>
> > <
> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_c
> ampaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=icon
> >
> > Virus-free.
> > www.avast.com<http://www.avast.com><http://www.avast.com>
> > <
> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_c
> ampaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=link
> >
> > <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
> > _______________________________________________
> > CQ-Contest mailing list
> > CQ-Contest@contesting.com<mailto:CQ-Contest@contesting.com>
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com<mailto:CQ-Contest@contesting.com>
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com<mailto:CQ-Contest@contesting.com>
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com<mailto: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
|