It could be worse. You could be in North Dakota.
73 Steve K0SR
-----Original Message-----
From: Fco. Luis Delgadillo [mailto:xe2b@outlook.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2014 04:09 PM
To: 'Martin , LU5DX', cq-contest@contesting.com
Cc: xe1by@hotmail.com, xe2smarco@gmail.com, xe1ct@yahho.com.mx,
contact@wrtc2018.de, xe1ee@hotmail.com, xe1grr@gmail.com, xe3n@hotmail.com,
'David XE1REW Moro Frias', xe2st@yahoo.com, xe1kk@dxxe.org
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] WRTC2018 Qualifying
MartinI totally agree with you on the selection criteria issue. The one for NA
# 9 is totally biased towards the people who activate islands on zone 8.The
differences are even worst for NA# 9 : Combining Zones 6, 7, 8, 9 and VP9 ???
Are you kidding me? If that is the case, why not even the whole CA and SA
continents? Propagation wise , It also a whole world of difference between such
zonesAny whimpy station on the caribean will do more in 8 hours than a full
lenght effort on zone 6. Just take a glance to the historic scores, (except for
a few illegal operations held by some current record holders)I'm very
dissappointed and hope the organizers objectively review this issue as well
yours.Luis XE2B> Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2014 15:10:22 -0300> From: lu5dx@lucg.com.ar>
To: ve4xt@mymts.net> CC: kzerohb@gmail.com; cq-contest@contesting.com;
wa5rtg@gmail.com; sawyered@earthlink.net; k5zd@charter.net; sm6lrr@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] WRTC2018 Qualifying> > Hi Kelly,> Yes. There i
s whole universe of difference between being at 8P5A and PX5E.> Not even N5TJ
can even come close to Tom operating from Barbados if> Jeff was operating from
Sergio's!> There an astronomic geographic and mult status difference in your
example.> From Barbados you can run at 250+ for almost 48 hour straight. That
is not> possible AT ALL from zone 11, 12 or 13. Not even from PY0F!!> > Vy 73,>
Martin, LU5DX> > On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Kelly Taylor wrote:> > > A
tiger isn't going to lose his stripes just because you took away the> >
distinction between assisted and non-assisted.> >> > Cheaters will cheat. If
it's not by claiming unassisted, it will be by> > using> > too much power, by
listening during off times, by using an Internet-linked> > remote receiver, by
organizing schedules via email and any number of other> > cheats.> >> >
Eliminating an important distinction between two different skill sets is> >
like advocating intercourse to combat teen pregnancy.> >> > One is
n't better than the other. They're just different. Better scores> > through
assistance are not automatic. If you sacrifice too much rate to> > chase spots,
you're losing points, not gaining them. If you focus too much> > on rate when
you should be chasing spots, you're losing points, not gaining> > them.> >> >
Look at the recent CQ WW DX SSB claimed scores: in all cases, unassisted> >
operations soundly outscored assisted. Does 8P5A have that much better> >
conditions than PX5E? Enough to account for 4.5 million points? Is PX5E a> >
lid? I don't think so.> >> > Given PEI's small size and surrounding saltwater,
I'd rather be VY2TT than> > VE2IM, yet VE2IM's unassisted score is nearly three
million points more> > than> > VY2TT's assisted score. And, no offence to Yuri,
but based on the QTH.com> > photo for VE2IM and the website for VY2TT, I'd
rather have the VY2TT> > multiple stacked monobanders and multiple 140'+
towers, too.> >> > In Single Op All Bands High, you're at fourt
h place before you've reached> > the first place score in Assisted All Bands
High. Did No.5 K1DG not> > outscore> > the leading Assisted All Bands High
score because he didn't use assistance,> > or because PX5E arguably has higher
potential for more higher-point,> > off-continent QSOs?> >> > And, this is all
before log-checking, too. Will, for example, PX5E lose> > points and mults
through the bad spots of others?> >> > There have been lots of excuses to
explain why unassisteds always beat> > assisteds. And it the main excuse goes
like this: "Assisted attracts lesser> > operators in lesser locations."> >> > I
don't buy that. Does K5ZD, who recently admitted to the 'shame' of> > operating
assisted, consider himself a lid? Surely not, and surely nobody> > who is
familiar with his history would make such a claim, either.> >> > I think
unassisteds win because rate is king, because two QSO points in the> > hand are
worth four in the bush and because chasing spots can distract you
> > from rate.> >> > So, no, I don't believe a loss in focus on the
> > distinction between the two> > classes means operators MUST use the
> > internet to be competitive. More> > likely> > is the hard-core uns will
> > attempt to prove they don't need no stinkin'> > spots!> >> > 73, kelly> >
> > ve4xt> >> >> > On 12/2/14 10:44 AM, "Mats Strandberg" wrote:> >> > > Hi
> > Martin,> > >> > > Anyone sitting in front of a radio for 48 hours does a
> > great job and> > should> > > be rightfully admired. If the person also
> > have some health issues, such> > an> > > operation is even more
> > impressive. I do not take any credits away from> > > people making such a
> > physical and mental effort in breaking own previous> > > records or even
> > winning a contest one way or another.> > >> > > When I said lazy means
> > that I consider myself lazy, when I do no not> > limit> > > myself to "me
> > and my radio(s)".This is my own subjective opinion and is> > not> > >
> > necessarily the truth.> > >> > > I can not question if you feel
more fatigue when working SOAB(A) rather> > > than SOAB. Human beings are
different and we all react differently to> > > physical and mental stress.> >
>> > > My own subjective feeling is that when working Assisted, I do not feel>
> > nervous of failing to find the multipliers on the bands. If I keep very> >
> good and accurate real time control of the skimmer or RBN, I will be> > very>
> > quick to work the stations before the pileups build too strong for my> >
small> > > pistol station. When working unassisted, I always fear to miss
difficult> > > multipliers that only appear for a very limited period of time.
I know> > when> > > my target file is higher than actual multiplier and QSO
count, and I feel> > > that the only way for me to change the situation is to
more effectively> > > find those multipliers that "should" be there. but whom I
have failed to> > > find. This is stress to me.> > >> > > Working with the
cluster, and in particular with RBN, VE7CC or an own> > > sk
immer, makes me feel 100% comfortable that sooner or later the rare> > ones> >
> will pop up. If I am just quick as a cobra attacks, I will be there> >
before> > > the big guns and hopefully get the mults at once.> > >> > > For me
personally, the stress of "not finding them" is causing much more> > > fatigue
than keeping myself awake or surviving the pain in my butt...> > >> > >
Contesting does not become "more honest" just because the organizers give> > >
up on those cheating. To merge SOAB(A) with SOAB is a simple way to say:> > >
Now we nailed them. They have no opportunity to cheat anymore.> > >> > > I
think this is to give up!> > >> > > Instead, the organizers should strive to
develop tools to detect the> > rotten> > > apples and separate them from the
good ones in the basket.> > > Cluster-cheating is no less severe than excessive
power cheating, but> > still> > > "we fool ourselves" by thinking that merged
categories reduce cheating.> > > Power-cheating is a far worse
problem than cluster-cheating, and by using> > > good software and SDR
receivers, it is nowadays more easy to find> > > cluster-cheaters than before.
Just work Assisted in a whole contest, and> > > you understand yourself who is
using cluster and skimmers, and who are> > not.> > > I make notes of those whom
I think are Assisted like myself in such> > > contests, and it is interesting
to compare that list with what category> > > people claim to be in when they
submit the log.> > >> > > 73 de Mats RM2D> > >> > >> > >> > > 2014-12-02 18:57
GMT+03:00 Martin , LU5DX :> > >> > >> Hi Mats,> > >>> > >> Thank you for your
note.> > >>> > >> Reducing SOAB(A) to just point and clicking by Hans sounded
really funny> > >> to me.> > >>> > >> But now you saying SOAB(A) involves
laziness is even funnier!> > >>> > >> All the SOAB(A) efforts I made from LP1H
involved having my rear end> > >> sticking to the chair for 48 hours. In 2010
after a health issue that> > >> involved two herniated disc
s the week before the contest and while on> > >> "really strong pain pills), I
still managed to sit for 48 hours> > straight.> > >> So I don't see laziness
there.> > >>> > >> I can tell you one thing for sure. Plain SOAB is a lot less
fatiguing> > than> > >> SOAB(A). And it's easier than SOAB(A), just tune the
dial, stop at the> > >> mults you hear and work'em. I mean I'm saying this
after:> > >>> > >> 5 SOAB (A) entries totalizing: 23051 Qs in CQ WW DX CW
Between 2008 and> > >> 2012 from LP1H> > >> 2 SOAB entries totalizing: 9889 Qs
in CQ WW DX CW Between 2013 and 2014> > >> from CE3CT> > >>> > >>> > >> I
really appreciate you Mats, but I really cannot understand your> > >>
reasoning. Where that perception comes from.> > >>> > >> What Germans did in
their WRTC qualifying rules is a great step forward> > to> > >> making sure
honest competition at least in what packet abuse is> > concerned> > >> is
achieved. I knew Paul was going to bring the rest of the list of> > >> cheatin
g activities cleverly developed by cheaters, like ghost ops,> > power> > >>
abuse, remote mult stations and the rest.> > >>> > >> Does that mean I'm
switching back to SOAB(A) to attempt to gain a sit in> > >> WRTC 2018. Nope. I
do what I enjoy the most, but that doesn't mean> > things> > >> need to be the
way I like them. Things need to be the best way possible> > to> > >> make sure
results reflect reality and we move forward towards Fair Play.> > >>> > >> Let
me tell you something, there is a way to solve those too. As I said> > >>
before, to eliminate ghost ops: streaming video or clips uploaded to> > >>
Youtube right after the test. Takes little investment and high profile> > >>
stations can prove what they do.> > >>> > >> The rest of the list should be
worked on. That's it.> > >>> > >> Vy 73,> > >>> > >> Martin, LU5DX> > >>> > >>
On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 12:24 PM, Mats Strandberg > > wrote:> > >>> > >>>
Martin,> > >>>> > >>> Most of your points are valid, but the better co
ntester is the one> > that> > >>> does ALL his contesting without any
dependence on cluster, RBN or> > similar> > >>> tools.> > >>>> > >>> I work
equally often SOAB and SOAB(A). Both disciplines are fun, but> > one> > >>> of
them is "lazy man"s choice". Sometimes (like this past weekend) I> > >>>
decided to be lazy.... and for sure did not end up in SOAB...> > >>>> > >>>
Let's face the fact - WRTC should be the competition where the elite of> > >>>
the elite should meet!> > >>>> > >>> If you favor clicking skills, then
computer games is the arena... Not> > >>> First Class contesting like WRTC!> >
>>>> > >>> I moreover also strongly disagree with your belief that Assisted
and> > >>> Non-Assisted should be merged into one category. It will be the> >
separation> > >>> of Real Contesting from Artificial> > >>> Contesting...> >
>>>> > >>> Operator skills in contesting should be based on the ability to
balance> > >>> Run rate with S&P efficiency, managing propagation changes and G
rey> > Line> > >>> influence - not your ability to "click the cluster" and
automatically> > send> > >>> away your call with another click.> > >>>> > >>> I
am surprised if German organizers of WRTC had the intention to> > equalize> >
>>> SOAB with SOAB(A) when contesters should qualify for next WRTC! Maybe> >
(and> > >>> hopefully) a clarification will follow after this debate.> > >>>> >
>>> 73 de RM2D (SM6LRR), Mats> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> On Tuesday, December 2,
2014, Martin , LU5DX > > wrote:> > >>>> > >>>> Hi Hans,> > >>>> With all due
respect.> > >>>> I believe you do not have all the information you need to make
your> > >>>> statement.> > >>>> To say that, it would be really interesting if
you tried to enter> > SOAB(A)> > >>>> in a serious effort, trying to beat a
personal best of yours or a> > State> > >>>> Record previously set in SOAB.> >
>>>> If you do, you will realize that it goes way beyond of just pointing> >
and> > >>>> clicking to be competitive and break a SOAB
mark, but this time in> > >>>> SOAB(A).> > >>>> I have entered SOAB for eight
years in CQ WW and other contests and> > last> > >>>> year I switched back to
SOAB. Simply because I wanted to try something> > >>>> different. I find SOAB
more rewarding though. But SOAB(A) ops deserve> > all> > >>>> my respect and
admiration.> > >>>> You do need to be even better than SOAB at balancing your
run/mult> > time.> > >>>> You need to determine when to call a mult or not. You
need to really> > >>>> listen> > >>>> to the calls of the DX station you are
calling because spots get> > busted> > >>>> quite often.> > >>>> You need all
the skills involved in SOAB plus you need to be able to> > >>>> handle> > >>>>
tons of information that go against the "Rate is King" rule.> > >>>>> > >>>>
Despite that, I always believed and I still do, that SOAB/SOAB(A)> > should> >
>>>> be> > >>>> merged to eliminate one of the many ways cheaters have to cheat
in our> > >>>> hobby and ruin it.> > >>>>> > >>>>
Vy 73,> > >>>>> > >>>> Martin, LU5DX> > >>>>> > >>>> On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at
2:00 AM, Radio K0HB wrote:> > >>>>> > >>>>> That is truly tragic as it favors
"point and click" skills over> > >>>> "radioman"> > >>>>> skills.> > >>>>>> >
>>>>>> > >>>>> 73, de Hans, K0HB> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>> > >>>>> On Monday, Dec 1, 2014 at 21:50, Randy Thompson K5ZD <> >
k5zd@charter.net> > >>>>> ,> > >>>>> wrote:> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>
The surprise for me is that Assisted scores are compared against> > >>>>>
Unassisted.> > >>>>>> > >>>>> This really says that if you want maximum points,
you have to plan on> > >>>>>> > >>>>> working Assisted.> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> >
>>>>> ___________________________________________> > >>>>>> > >>>>> CQ-Contest
mailing list> > >>>>>> > >>>>> CQ-Contest@contesting.com> > >>>>>> > >>>>>
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest> > >>>>>
_______________________________________________> > >>>>> CQ-Contest mail
ing 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
listCQ-Contest@contesting.comhttp://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|