[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] Self spotting versus cheerleading

To: cq-contesting <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Self spotting versus cheerleading
From: Steve Lott <lottsphoto@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 12:43:01 -0600
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
> Let's hook skimmers up to the cluster.  Once anyone CQs on the band, let

everyone know they are there!!  Why not?  Or are we using a DX tool the

wrong way?  Hmmmm.

73 Tree

I agree with that Tree !
at least that would solve the issue on CW
and like you or someone else said let everyone spot themself and then it
becomes a Non Issue !!!

and who ever said PKT (DX Clusters) has ruined ham radio
many professional photographers feel the same way about DSLR's, I happen to

And I disagree that DX cluster or spots has ruined Ham radio

DX Cluster is a Tool and we need to find the best way to use it, not only
for ourself but for our group (the community of Hams) as a whole


On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 1:14 PM, Tree <tree@kkn.net> wrote:

> > I think Tree was talking about "cheerleading", but, to me, it applies to
> all
> > spotting.  Most of us agree that it's wrong for 4Q2OM to spot himself.
>  Buf
> > if  K3KU spots 4Q2OM, then 'OM is receiving help, even by non-amateur
> radio
> > means.  This points out why cheerleading is so ethically problematic, and
> it
> > points out the whole issue about packet (and, by logical extension, even
> > with the old local on-the-air spotting networks.)
> Exactly.  I think the there are two basic problems at play here:
> 1. Each packet spot has too much value.
> 2. People think that if you allow self spotting - the end of the world is
> here.
> Most people who don't like packet - REALLY don't like the idea of self
> spotting.  However, I am wondering if allowing self spottig might actually
> do more to reduce the value of each packet spot - to the point that packet
> no longer has some of the really bad problems that it currently causes.
> I have spoken before about this situation where I was at TI1C in the CQ WW
> contest trying to work weak DLs on 15 meters.  If there was one or two of
> them calling, I could work them.  However, as soon as I got spotted, there
> were 200 of them calling and it was impossible to deal with them.  I would
> QSY up the band and call CQ - and the "normal pattern of activity" resulted
> which meant I had one or two of them calling at a time.  This was great
> until I got spotted again and the pack showed up.  I finally gave up and
> ran USA stations instead.  Their loss.
> However, if somehow there are enough packet spots to make each spot less
> valuable - maybe the more natural activity patterns will return.
> And how many of us packet eschewers were enjoying the continuous pileups on
> DX stations during the contest - that would continue to get fueled from
> packet and reward the DX station for not bothering to sign his callsign
> very often?  How about those FT5GA spots that appeared on frequencies that
> some other DX stations was working (like TX5xxx) and since nobody bothers
> signing their callsigns - you really had no idea who you just worked.
> I see the current situation with possible abuses like cheerleading, or
> masking your callsign to be a real problem.  There have been cases not
> widely known about where top ten stations have been caught doing this
> and their scores disappeared from the results.  It is powerful - it is
> tempting and some people are doing it well enough to get away with it.
> It sucks.
> > (Side question: Would we consider it differently if K3KU, with his
> unlimited
> > USA telephone plan,  telephoned a few hundred friends and gave them the
> > freq to find 4Q2OM?)
> Exactly my point.  What really is the big difference from doing this for
> yourself - or having other people do it for you?  Just because someone
> else inputs the data into the internet - doesn't mean the impact is somehow
> less.  Not all stations will have a equal input rate - so it just isn't
> fair!!
> > I've said before, using satiric hyperbole, "Packet ruined ham radio."  It
> > seems to me that Tree agrees.
> Yup.
> > Responding to EI5DI he says (ibid.):
> >
> > "[EI5DI:] * That's precisely why spotting (of any kind) should not be
> > permitted **in contests.*
> > **
> > "I agree with this statement personally.  However, I am afraid this just
> > isn't going to be possible."
> >
> > If Tree agrees with me, I feel vindicated.  And I agree with him: it
> ain't
> > gonna go away.  And maybe enough people will approve of self-spotting so
> > that it becomes accepted/premitted.  Heck, maybe they'll start counting
> > internet-linked QSOs for score.
> Enjoy your vindication!!
> I still think it is important for QSOs to be made over the air.  Perhaps if
> the cluster is free game for anyone - it will be factored out and we can
> feel better that the contest results have more to do with the factors we
> want
> to be emphasized were at play - as opposed to how many times you got
> spotted.
> Let's hook skimmers up to the cluster.  Once anyone CQs on the band, let
> everyone know they are there!!  Why not?  Or are we using a DX tool the
> wrong way?  Hmmmm.
> 73 Tree
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
CQ-Contest mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>