How does an entry get DQed for self spotting when they had no telephone
or internet access?
On 2/27/2017 10:36 AM, Gerry Hull wrote:
How about we frame the discussion around "Friends spotting Friends"
This seems very realistic, and matches human nature.
How many of the CQWW DQs are due to friends "cheerleading" by spotting
their friends multiple times?
How many are due to :"fake friends" by self-spotters?
Is it really cheating if your friends spot you? Or is it just jealousy by
other competitors? Also, if your friends are in the same country, and
there is no prop
on the spotted band, how valuable is the spot?
It is interesting that in VHF and above in ARRL Contests, self spotting is
encouraged. In fact, I have a service which allows stations to spot via
Twitter and a mobile app.
In the VHF+, it makes sense because unless you know someone is there, you
might not point the antenna.
And .... a more important question: How much does cheerleading increase
the score of those receiving the spots? Perhaps enough to beat the nearest
competitor -- but in how many cases is it that tight?
73, Gerry W1VE
On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 9:09 AM, Barry <w2up@comcast.net> wrote:
Doesn't solve the problem for Unassisted stations having "friends" (real
or otherwise) spotting them.
Barry W2UP
On 2/26/2017 05:30, Helmut Mueller wrote:
I don't see the Problem.
Unassisted = NOT Cluster = No Spots = No Selfspots
Assisted = Allow self spotting
73
Helmut DF7ZS
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] Im Auftrag von
Jukka Klemola
Gesendet: Sunday, 26 February, 2017 10:51 AM
An: Joe <nss@mwt.net>
Cc: cq-contest <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Betreff: Re: [CQ-Contest] Allowing self-spotting
Sirs,
I have difficulties following this discussion.
There are people selling the idea to allow self-spotting.
Which way are we going:
-allowing CQ calling on internet
-keeping the un-assisted category
.. or are we developing extreme double.standard or what is going on?
A glimpse into the Pandora's box we are now cranking open:
Is a station using CQoIP but claims not using spotting data, is such
entrant
un-assisted?
73,
Jukka OH6LI
2017-02-26 3:04 GMT+02:00 Joe <nss@mwt.net>:
I also like this self spotting.
BUT..... and there always is a BUT isn't there? I like the three
QSO's rule, BUT. there needs to also be a max per hour?
Then gain here we are, back to the same problem, UG!
I can just see someone spotting themself after every q.
Joe WB9SBD
Sig
The Original Rolling Ball Clock
Idle Tyme
Idle-Tyme.com
http://www.idle-tyme.com
On 2/24/2017 4:30 PM, Stan Stockton wrote:
Yes. This is what I wrote about a year and a half ago:
2015-10-28 4:06 GMT+01:00 Stan Stockton <wa5rtg@gmail.com>:
There should be a rule allowing the software to automatically submit
a self spot after you have logged perhaps three QSOs on the same
frequency - same rule for everyone. After all, when you call CQ on CW
you are, in effect, self spotting. There is a huge advantage in being
spotted and, on SSB, there is a huge difference in the number of
spots for different stations giving advantage to those who are
spotted frequently and quickly after a frequency change. 73... Stan,
K5GO
On Feb 24, 2017, at 9:49 AM, Steve London <n2icarrl@gmail.com> wrote:
On CW, we already have the equivalent of self spotting, thanks to CW
Skimmer and the RBN. It's virtually impossible to NOT be spotted. CW
Skimmer/RBN is the great equalizer - you no longer have to depend on
a network of friends to spot you.
We wouldn't be having this discussion if there was a SSB Skimmer.
Right now, we have a system where "those with the right friends"
have an advantage. Why not simply allow self spotting on SSB ?
73,
Steve, N2IC
On 02/22/2017 12:22 PM, Bob Henderson wrote:
Having myself met with unfair and unjustified treatment at the
hands of RDXC adjudicators I can empathise with those claiming
unfair treatment in adjudication. However in this case having
looked at the information supplied and done a little further
digging, I am unsure my empathy is justified.
3V8SS it seems acknowledges cheer-leading by his fellow Tunisians
KG5OUE and F4HJD but claims not to have encouraged it. I am
inclined to believe him, given some of my own friends have spotted
me during contests and I have NEVER, that is NOT EVER, asked anyone
to do so.
That said, HB9EOU appears to be rather more than a random contact
with Switzerland. Last year HB9EOU operated in the IOTA contest
from 3V8SM on Djerba Island AF-083 along with F4HJD. Ash (3V8SS) +
F4HJD + 3V8CB had activated 3V8SM from Djerba Island a couple of
months earlier.
The recording of the contact with HB9EOU seems odd, though the
events not entirely inexplicable but small circles in which the
same calls crop up repetitively raise questions. Perhaps it's all
an extraordinary coincidence but there is enough doubt for me to
wonder whether my empathy might have been misplaced.
Bob, 5B4AGN
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 09:48:33 -0600
From: "Doug Renwick" <ve5ra@sasktel.net>
To: "'Ashraf Chaabane'" <ash.kf5eyy@gmail.com>, "'cq-contest'"
<cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] R: Re: R: 3V8SS disqualified from WW SSB and
WRTC
Message-ID: <E976655BE7DB448B8806659C02036C2C@DOUG8PC>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
After reading your post and based on your response to the
committee, I would conclude that Bob, W5OV; Doug, KR2Q; Scott, W4PA
are nitpickers with an agenda.
If anything valid is further introduced to support the committee's
decision, then I would revise my opinion. As it stands, I believe
you were unfairly DQd.
Doug
-----Original Message-----
From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On
Behalf Of Ashraf Chaabane
Sent: February-22-17 7:34 AM
To: cq-contest
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] R: Re: R: 3V8SS disqualified from WW SSB
and WRTC
Mike, Ria and all,
I put online the CC accusations (their native emails) and my
responses:
http://www.kf5eyy.info/3V8SS_WWSSB16_DQ.htm
I think that allows everyone to read from both sides. Now it's up
to you to comment!
73
--
Ash ~ 3V8SS/KF5EYY
http://www.kf5eyy.info/
Phone/SMS: (+216) 22670026
Skype: kf5eyy
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________
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
|