> Contesting doesn't have to be one of them.
I'm saying it is going to be. It's maladaptive to ignore the opportunity
that is probably just about as beneficial as amateur radio's relationship
with the maker community. I'm not making the assumption that contesters *now
*want to do this (I know they don't - that is super clear), it's a matter
of fact that contesters in the *future* are *going *to do this. Like 20
years from now future. There is going to be some sort of transition period
where issues brought up in this thread are going to need to be addressed,
at some point.
> Rather than "pushing up a string" on current contest organizers. I think
you and your groups' efforts would be better served by using the contest
weekend assignment and exchange and basic scoring rules as an "open source"
activity. Sponsor your own contest within a contest that operates during
the weekend and interfaces with the existing contesters but have your own
set of rules. Enter as checklogs to the sponsors and see if the sponsors
will provide all the logs to you for your own scoring and cross checking.
It's funny you should mention that. YARC currently has experimented with
contests within a contest a few times. North American Collegiate
Competition is another example. The difference is those are valid,
competitive contest entries as well as sub-contest entries, more or less
the same thing as an inter-club competition. I hadn't thought about a
subcontest that goes in as checklog to the main one. That's a great idea.
Thank you.
73,
Sterling
On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 12:01 PM Edward Sawyer <EdwardS@sbelectronics.com>
wrote:
> Sterling. I know that you are well intentioned and sincere. But you are
> making the assumption that Contesters have some desire to want to transform
> to be more like the gaming community and that somehow its just better than
> current contesting. I am speaking for myself, but likely represent many,
> we don't. There are lots of gaming and eSports venues. Contesting doesn't
> have to be one of them.
>
> However, that being said. Rather than "pushing up a string" on current
> contest organizers. I think you and your groups' efforts would be better
> served by using the contest weekend assignment and exchange and basic
> scoring rules as an "open source" activity. Sponsor your own contest
> within a contest that operates during the weekend and interfaces with the
> existing contesters but have your own set of rules. Enter as checklogs to
> the sponsors and see if the sponsors will provide all the logs to you for
> your own scoring and cross checking.
>
> Then you could game, snipe, social media and whatever else you want to do
> while contesting and no one would push back (I don't think at least maybe I
> am wrong). And if the effort is at all worth doing, the new bread should
> bring more activity in general to the contest weekend and everyone should
> be happy.
>
> The 100% of your efforts can go into creating instead of convincing or
> arguing. Maybe Ray would even be part of it.
>
> Something to think about.
>
> Ed N1UR
> ________________________________________
> From: Sterling Mann [kawfey@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, March 13, 2020 11:47 AM
> To: Edward Sawyer
> Cc: donovanf@starpower.net; CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Merging Social Media and Contesting
>
> This discourse is giving me a lot of insight as to the future of amateur
> radio contesting. I'm a part of a few contest committees and organizing
> groups, so in part, I'm building programs for the next generation of ham
> radio contesters. I wholly assumed my points of view would not be met with
> agreements on this list, but being a part of the youth ham radio culture I
> tend to talk about this stuff in an echo chamber that has entirely the
> opposite points of view as just about everybody who has responded to me.
> It's good to hear from the other side, from the majority of contesters.
> It's almost a little disillusioning since the outcry is so fierce here.
>
> The problem with streamers submitting only checklogs and new categories is
> that nobody is going to want to force themselves into a non-competitive
> category so they can livestream their operation. They're disincentivized to
> livestream, and therefore the whole plan of opening up ham radio contesting
> to the modern era of hundreds of millions of eSports fans is moot.
>
> I forgot to mention: gaming has a thing called stream sniping, where
> opponents try to get an upper hand by watching the streams of a competitor.
> It's just like peeking at player 2's screen on Nintendo64 007 Goldeneye
> multiplayer. Streamers tend to put long delays or conceal revealing
> information to combat this. At eSport tournaments, stream sniping
> vehemently banned, and almost made impossible. Some teams have been caught
> sneaking information about their opponents strategy or whereabouts to
> competitors remotely, via earpieces, chat programs, etc. New rules and
> monitoring were put into place.
>
> There's also a thing called swatting, where disgruntled viewers report the
> streamer to 911 as a terrorist or mass shooter, ending up with a SWAT team
> at the streamers front door. This has actually resulted in a few deaths.
> Thankfully 911 agencies and SWAT teams are getting smarter about raiding
> houses with no prior convictions or criminal history.
>
> The point is two fold: contesting has a parallel with gaming, so a huge
> opportunity exists by integrating with that industry, and that cheating is
> always a thing, even in eSports, but it can be limited and curtailed while
> still keeping the game fair to everybody, streaming or not.
>
> -Sterling N0SSC
>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 5:39 AM Edward Sawyer <EdwardS@sbelectronics.com
> <mailto:EdwardS@sbelectronics.com>> wrote:
> Sterling. If you read through your own email, you have validated
> basically all of Frank's violation list and then said well its all still
> okay. Its not okay.
>
> And Ray does have responsibility for what is happening on his chat bar of
> his live stream. He can shit it off because it can't be controlled within
> the rules. But that would defeat the point of the social media interaction
> wouldn't it. And that the point. Contesting is not social media gaming.
> If some people want to promote in as "demo stations" like Ray is doing,
> wonderful. But its either a checklog or its a new category.
>
> Ed N1UR
> ________________________________________
> From: CQ-Contest [cq-contest-bounces+edwards=
> sbelectronics.com@contesting.com<mailto:sbelectronics.com@contesting.com>]
> On Behalf Of Sterling Mann [kawfey@gmail.com<mailto:kawfey@gmail.com>]
> Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2020 10:38 PM
> To: donovanf@starpower.net<mailto:donovanf@starpower.net>
> Cc: CQ-Contest@contesting.com<mailto:CQ-Contest@contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Merging Social Media and Contesting
>
> Frank, we have differing opinions regarding the judgement of the W2RE's
> actions and the intent of the rules.
>
> His CQs, exchanges, and solicitations were not relayed over the
> internet. *"Contacts
> made through repeaters, digipeaters, or gateways are not permitted. This
> applies to all forms of active relays or repeaters"* is saying the contact
> may only take place without relays. No contact was made using the stream.
> To do this, an S&P who could not hear W2RE but W2RE could hear the S&Per
> would have to entirely use the audio of the stream to complete the contact.
> However, livestreams are always on a fairly significant delay (typically
> 30s), so one could not make a real-time QSO with him solely by listening to
> him on the stream. https://youtu.be/aydTZN4nLfU?t=20005 is one case where
> someone said "love the youtube channel" but I guarantee the S&Per made the
> QSO entirely via amateur radio due to this delay.
>
> Nor was he soliciting contacts via the stream. Solicitation implies that he
> was asking people to work him on a non-amateur means of communication, but
> I don't think that's the case here. To solicit a QSO, he would need to give
> a potential contact his frequency. Arguably he could have also said "find
> me on 20m" or "find my spots" and that may have been a violation. He says
> that he's at the bottom of the band here:
> https://youtu.be/aydTZN4nLfU?t=97
> and to look on the dx cluster here: https://youtu.be/aydTZN4nLfU?t=623. I
> do think saying that is not compliant to the rules, but I don't think
> posting a stream of his operation is automatically solicitation.
>
> The video does not show his frequency, which would have been a clear
> violation, but others independently posted his run freq to the chat after
> finding it on the cluster. Ideally, that should have been deleted, but I
> don't think W2RE is responsible for what other people are saying.
> Personally, I'm in agreement with others that say an unlimited category
> would be good here. Ideally the self-spotting rule would not apply to
> unlimited, keeping us from having to think too hard about what
> self-spotting is.
>
> Additionally, Ray seems to be aware of the chat in the beginning but later
> on, as they discuss what frequency he's on, he seems to ignore it. It may
> have been put out of his sight, in which case he's not responsible for
> viewers conspiring together to work him. At least I don't think he is. But
> this is where the problem has it's greatest merit - does the stream give
> him an advantage over other operators? Averaged out over time, I don't
> really think it does.
>
> The only rule I could see him potentially violating is giving stations that
> work him a non-amateur means of verifying the information in their QSO. An
> S&Per might botch the QSO, be watching the stream, wait 30s after the QSO,
> and hear Ray "repeat" it on stream. But is that on Ray, or on the other op?
> I would argue the S&Per is breaking the rules because that person is using
> a non-amateur means to complete the QSO, exactly like if the S&Per texted
> W2RE what his exchange is. It's analogous to a gun manufacturer being
> liable for deaths caused by their guns. The catch is in the texting case,
> W2RE is an accomplice to the S&Pers violation. On a stream, is W2RE an
> accomplice in the same way? You would have to say that W2REs purpose for
> the stream is to give his S&Pers a second chance, but the evidence doesn't
> lead me to that conclusion.
>
> Jeez. I spend way too much time writing emails on this list. I'm sorry to
> write a brick of text but this is CQ-contest, and it's the one place on the
> world wide web full of other contesters where discussions like these can be
> hashed out into action.
>
> -Sterling N0SSC
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 8:36 PM <donovanf@starpower.net<mailto:
> donovanf@starpower.net>> wrote:
>
> > T his video of the RHR Live Stream reveals violations of four General
> > Rules for all ARRL Contests:
> >
> >
> > www.youtube.com/watch?v=aydTZN4nLfU<
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aydTZN4nLfU>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > What are the specific violations shown in the video?
> >
> >
> >
> > 1. CQs (i.e., soliciting a contact) were relayed via the internet
> > 2. Exchanges (a necessary half of every QSO) were relayed via the
> > internet
> > 3. end-of-QSO solications (i.e., QRZs) were relayed via the internet
> > 4. His 14155 frequency was shown multiple times during the live
> stream
> > 5.
> >
> >
> > What specific General Rules for all ARRL Contests were violated?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 3.9. Contacts made through repeaters, digipeaters, or gateways are not
> > permitted
> >
> >
> > 1. 3.9.1. This applies to all forms of active relays or repeaters.
> > 2. 3.10. The use of non-Amateur Radio means of communication (for
> > example, Internet or telephone) to solicit a contact (or contacts) during
> > the contest period is not permitted.
> > 3. 3.14. In contests where spotting nets are permissible, spotting
> > your own station or requesting another station to spot you is not
> > permitted.
> >
> >
> > 73
> > Frank
> > W3LPL
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 1.
> > 2.
> > 3.
> > 4.
> > 5.
> > 6.
> > 1.
> > 7.
> > 8.
> > 9.
> > _______________________________________________
> > CQ-Contest mailing list
> > CQ-Contest@contesting.com<mailto:CQ-Contest@contesting.com>
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> >
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com<mailto: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
|