I think the best solution is to allow self-spotting without conditions for
all "assisted' categories. I agree with Mike that it's impossible to
control any station from being spotted by another station. The station
being spotted should not be penalized for being spotted by other stations.
Dave WN4AFP
On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 12:02 PM, W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu@w0mu.com> wrote:
> I also agree with Rich's comments and suggestion.
>
> The first issue is that CQ needs to define what exactly a FRIEND is.
>
> Why are you telling me what my friends can do. I have no control over
> other people. I can only control what I do. If I did not ask for any
> help, why do I become the damaged party?
>
> 1. Friends should/not/be/dedicated/to spotting you. That makes them
> part of your contest effort and must be considered as
> unsportsmanlike behavior in addition to self-spotting.
> 2. Friends should not be spotting you “all the time.”
> 3. Friends should not be able to spot you “instantly” (IE, within a
> minute or two) when you change bands.
> 4. Friends should not be able to spot you “instantly” when you QSY
> within the same band
> 5. Friends should not be able to spot you “instantly” when your rate
> slows down (or especially if your rate goes to zero QSOs per minute)
> 6. Friends should not be spotting you a 2nd or 3rd time after your rate
> died and their first spot did not result in a rate increase, or any
> additional QSOs.
> 7. Friends should not spot you when you are calling CQ on a closed band
> (not only is that obvious, it just stupid)
> 8. Friends should not be spotting/only/you (or/mostly/you)
> 9. Friends spotting you should have no reason to change “their” call
> sign for each spot, but come from the same IP address
> 10. Friends should not be spotting each other, back and forth, when the
> above scenarios exist (mutual self-spotting)
> 11. Friends should not be connected to your network or “they grabbed my
> WIFI connection” as an excuse for why they knew precisely “when” and
> where you needed to be spotted. No, this was/not/out of your control.
>
> Lets talk about the numbered points above:
>
> 1. I have no control over people. If Fred decides to only spot me in a
> contest I have no control over him assuming this is not discussed or agreed
> on previously (impossible to prove)
>
> 2. See above. The rules only apply to those competing. People outside
> the contest can do whatever they want.
>
> 3, 4, 5. I would agree with these points as it would suggest that there
> is a agreement or collusion to do this and a means of following these
> changes provided.
>
> 6. This is what spotting is all about. So now I can't spot people
> multiple times in a contest or they might get DQed? Seriously?
>
> 7. RBN and skimmer do this. How do you know the band is closed or dead
> to everywhere?
>
> 8. Again? You have no control over people not in the contest and you are
> threatening to DQ me?
>
> 9. I agree. If you are attempting to hide something, you are probably
> doing something wrong.
>
> 10, 11.. Agree as that show mutual agreement to game the game.
>
> So were any self spotter helpers DQed that actually submitted a log?
>
> So what is the purpose in spotting? I have plenty of ham radio friends
> and when I tune across them on 10m and they are lonely or not appearing on
> my bandmap they get spotted. I thought that was the purpose of the
> spotting network? What am I missing here. They did not tell me to spot
> them. If I tune across them again later now I can't spot them? What? I
> am more likely to spot my friends over people I don't know. I suspect this
> is common behavior for many of us.
>
> What exactly is the point of rare and random spotting?
>
> I would agree that multiop station owners should ensure that their members
> understand all the rules, including the 10 minute rule and 8 band changes
> an hour and it would be even better if they knew where their bands started
> and stopped and where in those bands you can operate without your signals
> being transmitted outside the band limits. Single ops should also
> understand these same rules. Maybe all the rules should be enforced not
> just some.
>
> It is indeed time for some rules changes. You cannot be DQing people for
> the actions of others that we have no control over. If you have proof of
> collusion or cooperation great. To tell me you can DQ me because my
> neighbor thought he was doing something nice and spotted me a few times is
> over the top.
>
> The feelings about self spotting have changed dramatically recently. It
> is pretty obvious to me that the only real solution is allowing limited
> self spotting. Why would I compete in a contest where the actions of
> others can get me a DQ. I would love to hear about why a station with no
> internet access was DQed, T48K was it? The first joint operation maybe
> ever in Cuba where USA and Cuban relations have been improving. A great
> example of international goodwill if I ever saw one. So let me guess that
> a number of cuban stations got carried away spotted them so the answer is a
> DQ? Sad. I was hoping that one day I could the same as Cuba has been on
> my bucket list for a quite.
>
> The limits for spotting are already built in to the cluster systems. If
> they need to be adjusted I am pretty sure that this can be done fairly
> easily. Stations will only be respotted after 10 or 15 minutes just like
> what happens on CQ and RTTY.
>
> I am amazed that CQ would penalize people of the actions of others outside
> their control and then choose to look the other way when operators break
> rules and operate outside the limits of their licenses which are clearly
> within their control.
>
> W0MU
>
>
>
>
> On 4/17/2017 8:29 AM, Steve London wrote:
>
>> I agree 100% with Rich's assessment, comments and suggestions.
>>
>> I, too, have suggested that self-spotting be allowed, subject to
>> conditions on how often, and under what circumstances. The resistance I
>> have received has come from a few of the world top-10 SOAB competitors.
>> They are concerned that they will be at a competitive disadvantage due to
>> their perceived internet connectivity issues. With just a little creative
>> thinking, there are solutions to that problem, too. For example, how hard
>> would it be to set up a packet RF-to-internet gateway for self spotting on
>> VHF or HF ? Such things were very common in the early days of the internet,
>> 20 years ago. Before the internet, there was even a 30 meter band network
>> for interconnecting VHF packet clusters.
>>
>> 73,
>> Steve, N2IC
>>
>>
>> On 04/17/2017 04:55 AM, Rich Assarabowski wrote:
>>
>>> This just appeared on CQ WW
>>> http://cqww.com/blog/cqww-2016-ssb-self-spotting-and-entrant
>>> -audio-recording
>>> s/ . I know the intimate details of two situations from the last CQWW
>>> where genuine friends, unrelated to the contest effort and with NO
>>> communication with the contest operation were trying to help out and spot
>>> their buddies, resulting in DQ letters to the contest operation. The
>>> explanation below by KR2Q clarifies the definition of self-spotting.
>>>
>>> To me the logic of self-spotting as defined by KR2Q is completely flawed.
>>> It basically says that it's OK to spot a friend but not too fast, not too
>>> often, and never when you hear his rate dropping. The assumption made
>>> that frequent and fast spotting "indicate linkage to the mother station"
>>> is
>>> absurd. These rules now open up the opportunity that if you don't like
>>> someone, just spot him a few times (and no one else) and they will
>>> automatically get DQ'ed.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It's finally time for a rules change - allow self-spotting. One way is to
>>> have logging software send out automatic spots of yourself based on a
>>> commonly agreed upon algorithm, e.g. every X minutes, every new QSY, etc.
>>> The issue here is what to do about single-ops who are not connected to
>>> the
>>> internet and those in locations without internet service. This could be
>>> the "nail in the coffin" for the single-op category with no Internet
>>> connection and penalizes those operations who do not have Internet
>>> service.
>>> Incidentally, the T48K operation got DQ'ed for self-spotting and they did
>>> NOT have Internet service in Cuba. Ask K1XX, K1EP and K1MM about that
>>> one
>>> ;)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --- Rich K1CC
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>
--
Dave Edmonds
PK Ministry Webs
864.288.6678
dave@pkministrywebs.com
www.pkministrywebs.com
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|