I, for one, commend both you and ES5TV for taking the
high road based on your understanding of the rules and
spirit of the competition.
There's a strong sense that things need to be improved
in our corner of the hobby.
It's nice to see the passion and dedication displayed
recently versus the continual verbal war on some of
these topics.
73,
Julius
n2wn
--- Tree <tree@kkn.net> wrote:
>
> Welcome to "chatgate".
>
> During the course of the discussion surrounding the
> events that occurred
> on the ON4AST chat page during the CQ 160 - I have
> had time to better
> reflect on my own actions. I have come to the
> conclusion that while what
> I did might not rise to same level as some of the
> other abuse - some of my
> actions could be perceived as crossing over a line
> that I would rather not
> be seen doing.
>
> To be specific - I asked JH4IFF to give me a signal
> report on my CQ frequency:
>
> 2008-01-27 09:52:36Z N6TR Tree Is my signal
> making it to Japan? 1812.6 / K7RAT
>
> I suspected that my signal was very weak since I
> wasn't working hardly anyone
> at that time - and I knew Mitsu has a pretty small
> signal on 160 and he
> wasn't likely to be appearing in my log. However,
> looking back, I now wish
> I had not done this.
>
> Here is my log segment around that time:
>
> 160CW 27-Jan-08 09:50 1045 YV1DIG 599 599
> YV YV 10
> 160CW 27-Jan-08 10:03 1046 WA4BUE 599 599
> Va 2
> 160CW 27-Jan-08 10:05 1047 K6JEY 599 599
> Ca 2
> 160CW 27-Jan-08 10:18 1048 K9WJU 599 599
> In 2
> 160CW 27-Jan-08 10:22 1049 W1DEO 599 599
> Me 2
> 160CW 27-Jan-08 10:27 1050 W7WA 599 599
> Wa 2
> 160CW 27-Jan-08 10:30 1051 JA9CSE 599 599
> JA 10
> 160CW 27-Jan-08 10:35 1052 W7SX 599 599
> Or 2
> 160CW 27-Jan-08 10:39 1053 WB3HLH 599 599
> Md 2
> 160CW 27-Jan-08 10:43 1054 WA4GLH 599 599
> Tn 2
> 160CW 27-Jan-08 10:44 1055 W2HTI 599 599
> Nc 2
> 160CW 27-Jan-08 10:44 1056 K4AMC 599 599
> Tn 2
> 160CW 27-Jan-08 10:45 1057 K1BG 599 599
> Ma 2
> 160CW 27-Jan-08 10:46 1058 WA3AFS 599 599
> Ny 2
> 160CW 27-Jan-08 10:49 1059 W8GP 599 599
> Mi 2
> 160CW 27-Jan-08 10:58 1060 N3RN 599 599
> Pa 2
> 160CW 27-Jan-08 10:58 1061 N3GJ 599 599
> Pa 2
>
> As can be seen - there was no resulting packet rush.
>
> However, as was pointed out to me - this could be
> perceived as a self spot
> and therefore, I have decided to reclassify the
> K7RAT multi-single log as a
> check log. I do not believe self spotting is an
> appropriate thing for
> competitors to be engaged in during a contest -
> regardless of what the
> specific rules for that contest say - or what
> category I might be in.
>
> Another interesting point. The YV1DIG QSO was made
> after YV1DIG announced
> his frequency on the chat room. I used that
> information to leave my CQ
> frequency long enough to work him. I did not notify
> him that I would be
> calling. However, this raises an interesting point
> that I hadn't considered
> before... is it wrong to take advantage of a self
> spot? Obviously, you
> can't always know it is a self spot is someone is
> hidding their true identity.
>
> With all of this attention currently focused on this
> situation, I hope
> everyone will take this opportunity to think about
> how they feel about
> the situation and how they want to operate contests
> in the furture. For
> me, I will refrain from doing anything that could
> appear to be self spotting
> regardless of my intent in the future.
>
> 73 Tree N6TR
> tree@kkn.net
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
>
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
Julius Fazekas
N2WN
Elecraft K2/100 #3311
Elecraft K2/100 #4455
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|