In one of last year's contests I managed a 2.5 QSO/hour rate! When
condx are that bad, I don't mind chatting for a while with someone who
can hear me.
73, Zack W9SZ
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 11:40 PM, Dave, WV9E <dave@wv9e.net> wrote:
> Hi all.
>
> Very interesting comments. Some of which are quite correct. Spotting on
> APRS or whatever probably wont make much of a difference especially for those
> that work from Metro areas with tons of "local" operators. For me, working
> in a valley bottom from
> a small city blocked by bluffs in roughly 50 percent of directions, the
> operators making contacts that repeat the grid they have worked,
> ie "copy your en63" or what have you, are the biggest help. I know,
> contesting means moving fast and not wasting words/ air time.
> While nothing takes the place of time in the chair and calling cq, or good
> propagation, arguing about who is using illegal high power, or how others
> spot or don't spot is probably pretty moot considering everyone probably has
> a pet rule they would like to see added. For me that's bonus points for
> living in a black hole, the very hinde-end of VHF+ operation; not too likely
> to make it in the rules.
>
> In the end I do agree that spotting should be allowed, it gives us small
> frys a chance.
>
> 73,
>
> Dave, WV9E
>
>
>
> Very well said, Tom. Excellent post, thanks.
> Bill W5WVO
>
> Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] Assisted Classes
>
> > HI guys...
> >
> > Been following this discussion for a while, and I appreciate all of the
> > viewpoints presented. There are some aspects of the situation that don't
> > bother me too much, and others that, sadly, are just a reflection of a
> > lack
> > of gentlemanly behavior (with apologies to any YL's here, but I'm sure you
> > understand my meaning).
> >
> > I've been involved in VHF contesting now for over 35 years, pretty much to
> > the exclusion of other aspects of the hobby, and almost always with a
> > multi-operator group. When I first became involved, it was with a group
> > that
> > had a highly competitive relationship with the group down the road. There
> > were many stories told of amplifiers well over the FCC's limit ( and not
> > by
> > "just a little"), noise-making jamming devices left close-by the other
> > team's station, and plenty of 'rubber-pencil' accusations. This was mostly
> > before I became involved with them, although I did see a couple of those
> > amplifiers in use, albeit within the legal limit at the time, 2 kW PEP
> > input. My point being that a lot of this 'cheating' stuff isn't a
> > particularly a new thing. There are simply more and subtler ways to do it
> > now.
> >
> > As I said, the sad part is that we seem to have lost, if we ever had had
> > it,
> > the notion of what constitutes fair play vs. doing everything possible
> > that
> > is either not specifically prohibited in the rules or difficult to police.
> > I've said before that it seems like winning a piece of paper to hang on
> > your
> > wall does, for some people, justify behavior that is simply best described
> > as dishonest.
> >
> > On the other hand, much of the recent discussion here seems to be largely
> > sour grapes because someone else thought of a trick and you didn't, or
> > chose
> > not to go there. Let's face it: we are all participating in this sport
> > because we get some enjoyment out of it. Anyone who is getting an ulcer or
> > high blood pressure over it needs to seek help soon. It's your hobby, not
> > your career. It's fine to take it seriously from the standpoint of wanting
> > to do your best, but that isn't the same as having to be the best.
> >
> > The group I contest with now is about a half dozen experienced VHF
> > contesters who enjoy working together to get the station working well and
> > the challenge of improving our scores year over year. We take it seriously
> > enough to have some heated arguments about which equipment changes will be
> > the best for us, and how to prioritize our work list. We have succeeded in
> > winning our section in limited multi-op most of the time, and in placing
> > in
> > the top ten with reasonable consistency. Sure, we'd like to do better, and
> > we keep working at it, because it's fun and interesting for us.
> >
> > Like all of you, we have our limitations. We don't have a big bankroll to
> > fund equipment, or a lot of free time to work on all the projects we have
> > in
> > mind. Our contest site is out in the boonies a bit, and it has only been
> > in
> > the last couple of years that we could even use our cell phones without
> > having to climb 40 feet up the tower to get coverage. We still do not have
> > internet access of any sort available (there's that money issue again). So
> > the whole discussion about spotting is at once both meaningless and
> > disheartening as we realize that we are now at another competitive
> > disadvantage.
> >
> > It has become a bit of a ritual for us to look at the published contest
> > results and see how we stacked up in points. Usually, the overall winners
> > will have 5 times the points we do, so the ritual question sounds like a
> > line from the Butch/Sundance movie: " Who are those guys?". Or more like,
> > how do those guys make so many more points than we do? Maybe it's
> > spotting.
> > Maybe it's staying up all night to work the digital modes and guys they
> > have
> > skeds with. Maybe it's working a lot of local FM stations. Maybe it is
> > simply that they have a better location, or less noise, or more operators
> > pounding away 24/7. We don't know if any of those theories are valid, and
> > it
> > doesn't really matter. We had fun! And it is not unusual for several local
> > single op stations to score more points than we did! How humbling is
> > that?!
> >
> > We look at what went well, and what didn't. We don't worry too much about
> > how those other guys might have bent the rules to win. We probably aren't
> > 100% pure either, but we like to think that whatever bending we did was
> > accidental and not chronic.
> >
> > So what's my point? Do things like grid circling and spotting and other
> > such 'cheats' bother me. Yes, a little bit, when they represent a sort of
> > exclusive advantage that is not available to me and most others. But then
> > again, they don't bother me any more than using a parrot to call CQ
> > Contest
> > incessantly, or computer logging/duping, or a machine to send and receive
> > CW
> > because my skills aren't up to the task. At one time, those were also
> > considered unfair advantages, but are now fairly common and accepted.
> > Technology will always advance to provide new capabilities, and hams will
> > find ways to exploit those, especially in contesting where there are
> > bragging rights at stake. It seems to me that a totally fair fight could
> > only end in a draw anyway.
> >
> > The rules will never keep up with technology, or our ability to innovate
> > new
> > advantages. But these innovations ought to stay within the rules, and
> > maybe
> > the rules shouldn't try to stifle creativity too much in an effort to
> > create
> > that fictional level playing field. I'm OK with that sort of 'cheating'.
> > Now, those guys 35 years ago with the big amps and jammers? THAT was
> > cheating!
> >
> > So let's strive for rules that at least provide some fairness in terms of
> > competing against other stations of more or less comparable capability,
> > but
> > don't go overboard with it. High power and low power. Fixed and mobile.
> > Single op and multi-op. Rules that spell out the minimum requirements for
> > a
> > valid QSO. And maybe some major consequences (I'm ruling out the death
> > penalty here) for cheating that truly is a rules violation, but not for
> > innovation. There is inherent in this, though, the phenomenon of
> > escalation,
> > as everyone tries to keep up.
> >
> > It takes character to win without cheating, and more of it to not win
> > (notice I didn't say lose) without crying about it.
> >
> > So how about we get back to talking about how to improve all of our scores
> > by working together on innovations, and about how to attract more newbie's
> > to this facet of ham radio.
> >
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Tom Holmes, N8ZM
> > Tipp City, OH
> > EM79xx
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: vhfcontesting-bounces@contesting.com
> > [mailto:vhfcontesting-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Les Rayburn
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 1:20 AM
> > To: John Geiger; vhfcontesting@contesting.com; R Johnson
> > Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] Assisted Classes
> >
> > John,
> >
> > I certainly follow your logic on this point. True enough that it's
> > difficult
> >
> > for the ARRL to police some of these limitations, but I think the ones you
> > listed would quickly become self-evident.
> >
> > For example, if an operator is running 1KW on 2 Meters and claiming to be
> > "low power", he won't fool many of his fellow competitors. Likewise, a
> > multi-op station (even one running CW or digital modes) would become
> > obvious
> >
> > too.
> >
> > Spotting is much more difficult to detect. Let's say that someone
> > operating
> > in the "Single Operator Low Power" category decides to monitor the
> > Internet
> > clusters during the June contest. He doesn't post any spots, so is
> > completely, 100% undetectable. But using the network, he manages to snag
> > five or six more multipliers on six meters than his nearest competitor in
> > his section. He wins the section, while his honest competitor finishes
> > 2nd.
> >
> > Beyond all that, what I dislike is that eliminating spotting results in
> > fewer contacts per contest. Period. Given the very real differences
> > between
> > VHF and HF contesting, I think we should do everything we can to make more
> > contacts possible. Assistance accomplishes that, and I think would be a
> > healthy change for VHF.
> >
> > 73,
> >
> > Les Rayburn, N1LF
> > EM63nf
> >
> >
> >
> > Les Rayburn, Director
> > High Noon Film
> > 100 Centerview Drive Suite 111
> > Birmingham, AL 35216-3748
> > 205.824.8930
> > 205.824.8960 FAX
> > 205.253.4867 CELL
> > http://www.highnoonfilm.com
> >
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------
> > From: "John Geiger" <aa5jg@yahoo.com>
> > Sent: Monday, February 15, 2010 8:46 PM
> > To: "Les Rayburn" <les@highnoonfilm.com>; <vhfcontesting@contesting.com>;
> > "R
> >
> > Johnson" <k1vu@tmlp.com>
> > Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] Assisted Classes
> >
> >> Following this logic, then, shouldn't we just eliminate all power
> >> categories from contests, as the ARRL really can't policy how much power
> >> anyone is running? Probably need to eliminate the single op/multiop
> >> distinction also, since it is always possible that you could get a little
> >> late night help that isn't reported on the summary sheet. I guess the
> >> only classes we would need for VHF contesting would be limited (4 bands
> >> or
> >
> >> less) and unlimited (as many bands as you want).
> >>
> >> 73s John AA5JG
> >>
> >> --- On Sun, 2/14/10, R Johnson <k1vu@tmlp.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> From: R Johnson <k1vu@tmlp.com>
> >>> Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] Assisted Classes
> >>> To: "Les Rayburn" <les@highnoonfilm.com>, vhfcontesting@contesting.com
> >>> Date: Sunday, February 14, 2010, 9:45 PM
> >>> Well put Les !!!
> >>> 73
> >>> Bob, K1VU
> >>>
> >>> At 15:58 2/12/2010, Les Rayburn wrote:
> >>> >It reminds me of Oppenheimer's analogy about the Atomic
> >>> Age. The "genie is out of the bottle". Web clusters,
> >>> spotting networks, Twitter updates, etc. are here and
> >>> nothing will change that.
> >>> >
> >>> >The ARRL can't police these sites, because they don't
> >>> own them.
> >>> >
> >>> >It seems to be that retaining the notion of an
> >>> "unassisted class" is wishful thinking. Many of us long for
> >>> days gone by, filled with comic books, and pinball machines,
> >>> and rotary telephones. But those days are gone. You can
> >>> surround yourself with mementos of those days, or stubbornly
> >>> refuse to use that new touch tone phone, but it won't bring
> >>> that world back.
> >>> >
> >>> >In any contest, people can and will use whatever means
> >>> are at their disposal to win. Yes, most of us will follow
> >>> the rule and take pride in the fact that we didn't act
> >>> dishonorably to win 5th place or crack the Top Ten. But
> >>> there are others who "win at any cost" will always be the
> >>> order of the day.
> >>> >
> >>> >The ARRL has to be realistic about their ability to
> >>> enforce the rules of any contest, and try to make it as fair
> >>> as possible for everyone involved. It's clear that they
> >>> cannot effectively enforce many of the rules that involve
> >>> the use of spotting networks. So why not just admit that
> >>> Genie is out of the bottle. Allow assistance in the form of
> >>> spotting networks, and move on.
> >>> >
> >>> >This levels the playing field, and operators add
> >>> another tool to their shack. In the end, the best operators
> >>> will still prevail, as they usually do. Yes, it changes the
> >>> game--and we'll mourn the passing of a simpler time, when a
> >>> operator could sit alone in a room, disconnected from the
> >>> outside world save for their radio.
> >>> >
> >>> >But life and technology marches on.
> >>> >
> >>> >73,
> >>> >
> >>> >Les Rayburn, N1LF
> >>> >EM63nf
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >Les Rayburn, Director
> >>> >High Noon Film
> >>> >100 Centerview Drive Suite 111
> >>> >Birmingham, AL 35216-3748
> >>> >205.824.8930
> >>> >205.824.8960 FAX
> >>> >205.253.4867 CELL
> >>> >http://www.highnoonfilm.com
> >>> >_______________________________________________
> >>> >VHFcontesting mailing list
> >>> >VHFcontesting@contesting.com
> >>> >http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> VHFcontesting mailing list
> >>> VHFcontesting@contesting.com
> >>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> No virus found in this incoming message.
> >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> >> Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2690 - Release Date: 02/15/10
> >> 13:35:00
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > VHFcontesting mailing list
> > VHFcontesting@contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > VHFcontesting mailing list
> > VHFcontesting@contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> VHFcontesting mailing list
> VHFcontesting@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
> _______________________________________________
> VHFcontesting mailing list
> VHFcontesting@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
>
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
|