Re: [CQ-Contest] Stew Contest and Multi Op/packet

[W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu@w0mu.com>]

The fact is people like to run packet and do it whether the rules say it 
is ok or not.  The issue is exactly what do you do with them?  Another 
issue is lack of consistency from one contest to another.  Having 
different contests is great but people are creatures of habit and might 
think hey another contest I am going to do X when X does not even exist.
In my case I really didn't care about my score.  I am sitting at 10th 
now LP with 6 hours.  Not overly impressive and I expect to fall.  My 
decision to use packet was to keep me in the contest and doing 
something.  Instead I went to bed.  This was not good for me, ok sleep 
is good or the contest is it?  In the grand scheme of the contest W0MU 
being in or out of the contest is not a big deal.  Did I care that I 
would have "violated" the rules.  Not really. I do this for my fun.  
What I do really should have no impact on what you do in the contest.  
Even if I submitted under Multi who really cares?  How can you or anyone 
know if I am running packet or not?  What if 100 or 200 people decided 
to toss in the towel?  Is that good for the overall health of the 
contest?  I can't prove that packet would have made any difference in 
any contest.  My point is that people are doing it, we need to realize 
it and handle it in a way that makes sense to that participant 
understanding that we are the upper tier of contesting and we 
essentially play a different game and depend on the new people and 
randoms to keep the fun going.
I had a number of runs that I believe were packet generated.  I thought 
it was great!  I love pileups and running rate.  Were most of those 
people Multi?  I doubt it.  Did those folks even submit a log?  No 
clue.  Packet is out there.  Randoms as we call them in gaming stumble 
onto 160 or see all the RBN spots on 160 and show up for the fun.  Isn't 
this a good thing?
I talked about online gaming and the devs or organizers forcing people 
to play a certain way and the negative impact it has on the game both in 
game and outside in the gaming forums.  We can write all the rules we 
want or hope that everyone reads them but we know they don't.  I think 
as a community we have to understand what people are doing and admit 
that maybe it would just be easier to acknowledge what is actually 
happening, recognize them for being SO packet and move on, instead 
trying to force people to change.
So we have people doing things that the organizers really didn't want to 
encourage but here they are anyway.  Do you ignore them and attempt to 
find the single ops with packet that are in Multi and put them in a 
check log?  If you do that and they see it in the results are they 
ticked off?   Are they told why.  Will they come back and play or will 
they just say no thanks the next time.
We have chosen to recognize QRP when QRP entries tend to be considerably 
less in number than the other classes.  Does it make sense to continue 
to ignore SO A if there are more of those types of entries than QRP or 
some other class.   For the record, I like the QRP class, encouraging 
less power etc is a good thing, but I should get extra point for having 
to dig em out!  HI!
For SP it appears that Assisted are getting grouped with Multi which is 
essentially the same in this contest except for the multi operator 
part.  NAQP is different because of the multiple transmitters and 10 
minute timers essentially eliminating SO2R Single op assisted.  Which is 
why I don't think it made sense.
Is it really that big of a deal to just recognize that SOA is a thing 
that is not going away and recognize it?
Can someone detail how me or others running packet has any impact on any 
other competitor?  What am I missing here?  I get the packet pile up but 
rare mults always have pileups.  What else?
I appreciate the work that all the organizers do.  I respect their rule 
changes, but I think we should be able to talk about them or talk about 
changes or why things are the way they are without being scared to talk 
about it.
I appreciate all the opinions expressed and hope that you all will work 
me in the next one and I will do the same.



On 12/18/2016 5:21 PM, Mike Smith VE9AA wrote:
> Agree 100% Ken.  If you look at 3830 (which is only a fraction of the actual
> entrants) you'll see many multiops that only list one operator.(mostly the
> LP gang I think)
>
> True, I suppose its possible some of the fellows filling in the 3830 form
> simply forgot to list all the guys at the station that night. (unlikely, but
> could happen)
>
>   
>
> Others, however, are apparently of the belief that a Multiop means single op
> + packet. (guess they never read the rules or are creating/justifying their
> own rules somehow in their mind)
>
>   
>
> I certainly do not speak for the Boring ARC , nor the SP contest,. but if my
> ears are to be believed (packet pileups last night) along with 3830 posts
> and misinformed (but perhaps well intended) posts like the ones I see from
> W0MU, then it would appear at first glance that either folks are using
> packet and just putting themselves in a multiop category because they
> believe that's what they are supposed  to do (per ARRL convention) or
> something else I have not yet thought of.
>
>   
>
> Disappointed? Yes.
>
> Surprised? Sadly, no not really.
>
>   
>
> Part of the problem may be the way the rules are written or they are
> becoming watered down.  I snipped this from the logs rec'd page mere moments
> ago.  Look for the word assisted:
>
>   
>
> "2016 STEW PERRY
>
>   
>
>        This report generated on Sunday, 18-Dec-16 at 14:58.
>
>   
>
>   
>
> Total logs = 436
>
>   
>
> C = Category (CheckLog, Multi or Single).  ASSISTED classified as Multi.."
>
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>
> Mike VE9AA FN66
>
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>
> Mike, Coreen & Corey
>
> Keswick Ridge, NB
>
>   
>
> From: Ken K6MR [mailto:k6mr@outlook.com]
> Sent: December 18, 2016 8:08 PM
> To: Mike Smith VE9AA; cq-contest@contesting.com
> Subject: RE: [CQ-Contest] Stew Contest and Multi Op/packet
>
>   
>
> Mike:
>
>   
>
> Rule 6. Seems pretty plain to me. Packet is not allowed for single op, and
> discouraged for Multi op. Local skimmers appear to be ok, but grudgingly.
>
>   
>
> SP appears to be an attempt to hold on to "Boy and his Radio" (copyright
> K0HB) contesting.  Kinda like Stew did himself, as I read the history.
>
>   
>
> Fine by me.
>
>   
>
> Ken K6MR
>
>   
>
> From: Mike Smith VE9AA <mailto:ve9aa@nbnet.nb.ca>
> Sent: Sunday, December 18, 2016 1:10 PM
> To: cq-contest@contesting.com
> Subject: [CQ-Contest] Stew Contest and Multi Op/packet
>
>   
>
> The Stew Perry contest is not an ARRL event, so entering in Multi Op does
> not mean "Single Op + Packet"
>
> I was surprised at a few mini packet pileups I had last night.  Now I know
> why.
>
>   
>
> After reviewing the DX Cluster today and reading 3830 it's apparent nobody
> reads rules anymore.
>
>   
>
> In all fairness, there were a couple guys using skimmer/telnet/cluster
> submitting properly as checklogs as they were chasing new countries or
> whatever.
>
>   
>
> I would suggest to the Boring Club to clarify this point in the multi op
> rules. (ie: Multi Op does not mean Single Op + Packet).
>
>   
>
> Mike VE9AA
>
>   
>
> Mike, Coreen & Corey
>
> Keswick Ridge, NB
>
>   
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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