CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

[CQ-Contest] FW: Preview of CQWW Rules 2015

To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: [CQ-Contest] FW: Preview of CQWW Rules 2015
From: "Dick Green WC1M" <wc1m73@gmail.com>
Reply-to: wc1m73@gmail.com
Date: Sat, 23 May 2015 14:21:49 -0400
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
Here's a continuation of the thread I just posted. My point is that if the
committee is concerned about alerts that include call signs and/or mult
information (i.e., that certain stations are active on a particular band),
then that still fits within the definition because frequency information is
being provided.

73, Dick WC1M

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dick Green
> Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 11:10 PM
> To: 'Stan Stockton'
> Subject: RE: [CQ-Contest] Preview of CQWW Rules 2015
> 
> Stan,
> 
> I agree that knowing certain mults are on 160 is useful, but in the case
you
> cited frequency information *is* being given to you. You're being told
that
> certain mults are on 160, and 160 is the frequency information. No one has
> said the frequency has to be exact or to the nearest KHz. If it tells you
where
> to look, it's useful. Therefore, even under the old definition that I
favor
> (station information plus frequency), providing a list of active mults on
a band
> would be considered "spotting assistance".
> 
> I could even go so far as to say that getting a list of stations that are
"on some
> band now" is spotting assistance because we know the station will be on
one
> of the amateur radio bands, and that's frequency information. It's not as
> useful as knowing the specific band, and definitely not as useful as
knowing
> the specific frequency, but it could still be construed as spotting
assistance
> under my definition because there's an implied frequency reference.
> 
> Again, I don't like removing frequency from the criteria because it
prohibits
> SCP, NG3K lists, etc.
> 
> 73, Dick
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Stan Stockton [mailto:wa5rtg@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 8:53 PM
> > To: <wc1m73@gmail.com>
> > Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Preview of CQWW Rules 2015
> >> >
> > I'm still in shock over what I am interpreting this thing to be.
> > Could you be within the rules and have the RBN provide info to you
> > that would tell the multiplier prefixes that were available to work on
> > each band?  Sure would be a huge advantage to sit here in Arkansas
> > and, when a filtered list that was heard locally showed 20 European
> > multipliers on 160, pop down there to work one after the other.  In my
> > mind any information provided to a single operator that he didn't know
> about using his own skills is assisted.
> >
> > 73...Stan
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > > On May 22, 2015, at 2:11 PM, Dick Green WC1M <wc1m73@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Stan,
> > >
> > > Hope you are well.
> > >
> > > Before the CAC and CQWWCC came out with rules covering CW Skimmer,
> > the
> > > definition of "assistance" was vague and non-specific. But I think
> > > most would have agreed that getting any of the information you
> > > listed below from "someone else" would constitute assistance.
> > >
> > > But when the revised rules came out, both organizations defined
> > > "spotting assistance" or "QSO assistance" as consisting of the
> > > callsign (or exchange or mult designator) plus the frequency. We had
> > > to do it that way in order to continue to allow single-frequency CW
> > > decoders that someone might use on the run frequency or S&P
> frequency.
> > > We could probably have made the definition "and information about
> > > any of the stations on the band other than those on the radio's
> > > current frequency" (and tightening the definition of "current
> > > frequency"), and then listed CW decoders as an exception. But we
> > > were trying to get away from describing specific technology because
> > > technology changes too much. The goal was to define the information
> > > that constitutes
> > assistance, not the technology that provides it.
> > >
> > > The original information definitions -- call and frequency for
> > > example
> > > -- cover the useful information provided by any of the known
> > > assistance methods. While this might permit the information you
> > > listed below, none of what you list is truly useful from a
> > > competitive standpoint. Knowing that a station you really need is on
> > > the band might cause you to stop running and go find it, but you
> > > still have to find -- which can take a ton of time. And there are
> > > perfectly legal ways to obtain that information. For example, the
> > > NG3K list, which you can read before the contest, tells you about
> > > M/M operations that are highly likely to be on every band during the
> > > entire contest. Just because you know there's a high probability
> > > they're on the band doesn't justify spending a lot of time hunting
> > > them down. Also, if you know from the list that an operation is
> > > single band, you know which band to search. But that isn't a huge
> > > amount of help in my opinion. I suppose it can be valuable help if
> > > you happen to work a station with a similar call on another band and
> > > can use the NG3K info to know that it's not the call of a
> > > single-band operation on another band. But that's very
> > minor assistance in my opinion.
> > >
> > > My point is that, in my opinion, the rules need to define assistance
> > > in terms of information that truly affects the competition, not just
> > > any information. That was one if the problem with the old
> > > definitions of assistance (the other being problems defining the
> > > sources of the
> > > information.)
> > >
> > > I saw a post on the reflector that points out one big reason the
> > > change is
> > > bad: it outlaws SCP. SCP is a technology (and a database) and it
> > > provides the call sign. It doesn't say anything about whether that
> > > call is on the band (which is not required by the new definition),
> > > but it helps you to determine the call of a station you're hearing.
> > > If they go back to defining the prohibited information as containing
> > > the
> > frequency, SCP is OK.
> > >
> > > Are you still on the CAC? If so, how's it going?
> > >
> > > 73, Dick WC1M
> > >
> > >
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: Stan Stockton [mailto:wa5rtg@gmail.com]
> > >> Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 10:38 AM
> > >> To: wc1m73@gmail.com
> > >> Cc: <k5zd@charter.net>; <cq-contest@contesting.com>
> > >> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Preview of CQWW Rules 2015
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>> On May 22, 2015, at 12:10 AM, Dick Green WC1M
> > <wc1m73@gmail.com>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> 2. QSO alerting assistance
> > >>>
> > >>> I don't see the necessity of this change. Having just a call sign
> > >>> or just a multiplier doesn't provide enough information to
> > >>> complete a QSO. You need the frequency. Station identification
> > >>> (call sign or exchange or multiplier) and frequency are the
> > >>> necessary and sufficient information that defines "QSO alerting
> > >>> assistance". The only thing the change does is prohibit
> > >>> single-frequency CW decoders, which provide no competitive
> > >>> advantage and may be needed by ops
> > with hearing problems.
> > >>
> > >> Dick,
> > >>
> > >> I am missing something or may not have been in tune with "what's
> > >> the most you can do and be within the rules" on this subject in the
past.
> > >> Has it
> > > ever
> > >> been legal in SOAB to have any information provided to help with
> > >> any of
> > > the
> > >> following?:
> > >>
> > >> A.  Knowing a call sign of someone on a band without frequency
> > >> information B.  Knowing a multiplier prefix on a band without
> > >> frequency
> > information C.
> > >> Knowing how many new call signs not already worked are on a band
> > >> without specific call signs or frequencies.
> > >> D.  Knowing how many multipliers not already worked are on a band
> > >> without specific call signs or frequencies.
> > >>
> > >> Please identify which of the above, if any, can be accomplished
> > >> have been legal under previously published rules and by which (any
> > >> and
> > >> all) means
> > > they
> > >> can be accomplished.
> > >>
> > >> I have always assumed that any help in knowing either A, B, C or D
> > >> above would be assisted?
> > >>
> > >> 73...Stan, K5GO
> > >
> > >

_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

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