It seems to me that VA3VF is sitting on the fence. It is clear that, in
ham radio, there are two basic classes of contest operators, drivers and
passengers. Drivers decode other transmissions themselves, and everyone
else is a passenger. This is independent of mode.
Could there be room for for a third class - data-processing contesters?
VA3VF implies there might be - I say no chance! When and if the FT
craze dies out, there will be yet another "more-advanced data mode" to
take its place and, once again, its users will be passengers. Sure, it
will still be contesting of one kind or another - your machine competing
with my machine.
http://lists.contesting.com/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2019-05/msg00086.html
73,
Paul EI5DI
On 12/01/2020 18:20, DXer wrote:
Hi Peter,
That's a valid concern, and the excerpt from the committee message you
quoted should 'buy' all critics some time:
"For the FT mode it is not yet clear where the fault is..."
Read the preceding messages again, and you'll see that was not the issue.
The issue there, whether 'flowered' or not, was still FT-X is not
hamradio, no skills, boring, unsophisticated users, etc.
As I said before, FT-X contesting is not likely to be my 'thing', but
give it a chance, if you are concerned about contesting.
If you are still in 'mode wars' mood, give it a rest. Other 'experts'
say the FT craze will die out in 3 years or so, let it happen on its
own then. Natural death is one thing, 'premeditated murder' is another.
73 de Vince, VA3VF
On 2020-01-12 12:56, Peter Sundberg wrote:
But there is a major problem when the contest committee tell us that
they had to waive the NIL penalty because otherwise a large number of
stations would end up with a negative score.
Furthermore the committee states the following:
"In the legacy modes, the "fault" for a NIL is most always on the
side that logged the QSO. For
the FT mode it is not yet clear where the fault is, but in any case,
the amount of NILs is
abnormally high. Going forward, FT contesting needs to better define
how QSO partners can reliably
communicate whether a QSO is complete and should be logged. The
responsibility resides both
with contest participants and FT contest software developers."
Yes Vince, a contest is a contest and the goal is the same. But when
the operator is unable to decide whether a QSO should be logged or
not, to me it that's a clear indication that automation has gone too
far. Especially when the committee says that the amount of NILs is
abnormally high.
The operator is "in the back seat" and certainly NOT up front
driving. Now that's where there's clearly room for criticizing the
concept.
73
Peter SM2CEW
_______________________________________________
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
|