You ask for the contest sponsors to seek a solution to this issue. What issue?
The problem seems to be with how the SQP handles scoring - not with the
individual contests themselves.
I don't think this is something that WWROF can assist with.
Randy K5ZD
-----Original Message-----
From: CQ-Contest <cq-contest-bounces+k5zd=outlook.com@contesting.com> On Behalf
Of Stan Zawrotny
Sent: Sunday, October 4, 2020 6:04 PM
To: Paul O'Kane <pokane@ei5di.com>
Cc: CQ Contest <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Distributed Contesting
This is a topic that is currently being discussed by the State QSO Party Group.
We are seeing stations operating remotely as in-state operators in several
different state QSO parties so that they can make more contacts for the State
QSO Party Challenge. Some stations are teaming up - "I will let you use my
station for in-house in my state's QSO party if you will let me use yours
during your state's QSO party." Some are piling up the points by operating
in-state in 5-6 different QSO parties.
The SQP Group would prefer that the contest sponsors seek a solution to this
issue. It is obviously too late to prohibit the practice, but the sponsors need
to address the inequity that remote stations have in scoring.
I think the WWROF should take the lead and act promptly.
This is my personal opinion and should not be considered a position of the SQP
Group.
Stan Zawrotny, K4SBZ
Administrator, State QSO Party Group
__________
Stan, K4SBZ
On Sun, Oct 4, 2020 at 3:21 PM Paul O'Kane <pokane@ei5di.com> wrote:
> Last month, W3LPL and K3LR announced that they had decided not to
> compete in any multi-op category in the 2020 CQ WW contests.
>
> http://lists.contesting.com/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2020-09/msg00036
> .html
>
> They went on to say they "remain hopeful that science will allow our
> teams to resume Multi Multi operations in 2021"
>
> There are at least two ways in which science will permit this. The
> first depends on the availability, and uptake, of effective vaccines
> within the next 12 months. Right now, that's uncertain. The second
> is that science, or rather technology, will help remote multi-op
> entries to be competitive.
>
> There are many positive aspects to remote contesting, including -
>
> It gets more people on the air - meaning more QSOs and more contest
> entries.
> It saves the ops time and money - they don't have to travel to the
> station.
> It's safer - no close contact between operators, whether day or
> night, over several days.
> The RF is exactly the same, no matter where the operators are - so
> what's not to like?
>
> There are some disadvantages -
>
> It's expensive, and technically challenging, to configure a station
> for competitive remote entries, and particularly so for multi-op.
> Latency can be a problem, especially for CW - though 5G may provide
> a solution.
> As those who work remotely know, team spirit can be affected - it's
> "just not the same".
>
> Regardless of these disadvantages, it's likely that multi-op contest
> stations/owners generally are gearing up for remote operation - if
> only to have the option in future.
>
> So, it's all good then - or is it?
>
> Not quite. We're in the early stages of what I call Distributed
> Contesting, of which remote operation is an example. Until a few
> years ago, it was a requirement in contest rules that all station
> equipment had to be located within a given area. With the increasing
> take-up of remote, "equipment" was changed, typically, to "all
> transmitters, receivers, and antennas" - meaning, in practice, that
> not all station equipment had to be located within a given area. In
> other words, stations are becoming distributed.
>
> Further, CQ WW 160 permits the use, for SO Assisted, of one "remote
> receiver located within 100km of the main transmitter site". For a
> good reason, of course - the rule is "designed to accommodate new
> technology, and for those who experience high noise levels at the
> transmitting site". This is an example of the increasing distribution
> of stations, whether remote or otherwise. If follows that, since "high noise
> levels"
> can apply to any band, and we all aware of increasing noise levels in
> urban areas, there will be pressure to permit this concession more
> generally.
>
> There is, simultaneously, an inexorable trend towards SDRs - Software
> Defined Radios. With faster communications technology and utilities,
> there is less need for all software components of an SDR to be
> available in one discrete location. If there's better processing
> power in "the cloud", in terms of modes supported (especially new digital
> modes), or
> filtering, or noise reduction - why not use it? This represents
> distributed receivers, and they're on their way.
>
> Remote operators are quick to point out the disadvantages, outlined
> above, they have to live with. What they prefer not to be reminded
> about is the opportunity value of remote capability. They can compete
> in circumstances where others cannot even enter.
>
> Neither do they like to be reminded that, at all times, they are
> dependent on public utilities (internet, 4G, whatever) for their QSOs.
> Further, they are simultaneously communicating over those same public
> utilities - they require more than RF alone to have their QSOs. This
> is easily demonstrated by asking them to disconnect from the utility,
> and then see how many QSOs they have.
>
> My point is that distributed-station operators, in order to realize
> their not-insignificant opportunity to compete, are obliged to abandon
> the communications-independence that until recently has been the
> hallmark, the defining characteristic, of ham radio.
>
> There's nothing wrong with distributed contesting - it's the preferred
> option for many operators. But it is different from RF-all-the-way,
> and evolving rapidly - driven partly by the constraints imposed upon
> us all due to the pandemic. Could we have reached a tipping point?
> It seems to me that this evolution is largely unregulated, with
> individual contest sponsors doing their best to keep up with evolving
> technology as it affects their particular events.
>
> My question is - will WWROF (the World Wide Radio Operators
> Foundation) help to regulate Distributed Contesting in terms of a
> general set of recommendations, including categories, for contest
> rules - with particular emphasis on the major events? The WWROF was
> created "by a group of radio operators who saw a need for an
> independent organization devoted to the skill and art of radio
> operating." Surely this is within their remit, and isn't "now" the right
> time for them to act?
>
> https://wwrof.org/
>
> 73,
> Paul EI5DI
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|