I guess many of us have a different definition of contesting.
Is it hunting if the game you looking for has previously been caught and
tied to a tree waiting for you to find it? I think not.
Schedules and phones are fine but not in contests. Would it be fair if you
had the phone number of Joe in a grid square that we both needed but I
didn't. You could give him a ring and get the contact but I could not
because I did not have his number or because you have internet and I don't
or know of a better chat room than I do.
It sounds like you are not willing to put in the seat time to make sure you
are on for the opening.
Someone mentioned that packet was not very effective in VHF. Why? If more
people used it like they do on HF it would be effective. Sell the idea to
more people.
IMHO Scheds, telephones, chat rooms and the like have no place in a contest.
CC Packet Cluster W0MU-1
W0MU.NET or 67.40.148.194
"A slip of the foot you may soon recover, but a slip of the tongue you may
never get over." Ben Franklin
-----Original Message-----
From: vhfcontesting-bounces@contesting.com
[mailto:vhfcontesting-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Marshall Williams
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 3:34 PM
To: Kenneth E. Harker; VHF Contesting
Subject: [VHFcontesting] My Proposal to the VUAC
Hi Kenneth....If you enjoy that kind of operating, I am wholeheartedly in
favor of you continuing to operate in that way. I don't want to take
anything away from the guys that like to operate in that fashion. Go for
it!
It is very telling to me that the S&P operators want to take away from me
the way that I and many others want to operate. We want to make as many
contacts as possible considering the station that we have and the
propagation that exists. We don't want to spend the entire contest bumbling
around hoping that we will "bump into" another station in a grid that we
have not worked.
You have the HF Philosophy, while I and many others have the VHF Philosophy.
It is just a difference in point of view and philosophy.
You will never be convinced that what I want, for myself and others, is
acceptable--and that is OK as you would have your own class in which to
participate. I just want a class in which I may participate. I / we
believe that you WORK a station when you exchange the required QSO elements
over the radio. That is the definition of a contact. All this other
business about how you FOUND the other station is just a huge "red herring".
In answer to your question about new stations, they have access to the same
prop loggers / reflectors that the rest of have. In this last EME contest,
there were many, many small(some very small) stations that could be worked
because of the N0UK EME reflector. Small stations could find the big
stations and then call where the big stations were listening....sometimes
for several minutes. Eventually, the big station would pick them up and
work them. Such a contact would never occur if everyone was tuning around
trying to find the really weak ones to work.
This allows the smaller stations to participate in the contest(when
otherwise they could not) up to the capability of their stations. The small
station gets a contact that he would never otherwise get and the big station
gets a few points too. I cannot see this in any other way than a WIN-WIN
situation.
73 Marshall K5QE
Kenneth E. Harker wrote:
> I haven't commented on this yet, so here goes. FWIW, I am in the
>West Gulf Division and try to operate at least one or two VHF contests
>a year (as a guest op or multiop), with a particular interest in the
>six meter band over the others. I began contesting about 50% VHF, 50%
>HF, but in recent years I have been doing a lot more HF contesting. I
>have been actively contesting since 1996. I am in the West Gulf
>Division, and I have a strong negative reaction to Marshall's proposal.
>
>
>
>
>
>>Via the responses that I received, I have come to understand that
>>there are some ops who believe in what most would call Search &
>>Pounce(S&P)--tuning the bands carefully, listening for others calling
>>CQ or calling CQ yourself, and making whatever contacts come your way.
>>The people who are into this mode of operation believe that this
>>method produces a contact that is "more pure", "more valid", or "more
valuable"
>>than contacts made via schedules.
>>
>>
>
>I've never heard the term "Search & Pounce" used to describe calling CQ
>and waiting for responses. S&P refers to tuning the radio and looking
>for others calling CQ. The act of calling CQ and waiting for responses
>is most often referred to as "running" or "CQing". They are two
>different activities.
>
>But, syntax issues aside, Marshall makes a valid point - many of us
>feel that unscheduled (or "random" if you want to use meteor scatter
>operation
>terminology) QSOs are what the contests should be about. Contesting
>should be about operating the radio - and schedules (especially
>real-time schedules made out-of-band on the internet or via telephone)
>are contrary to that philosophy because they remove key elements of the
>radio operation skill set from the equation.
>
>
>
>
>
>>I have nothing against the guys that wish to operate in this manner
>>and I believe that they should continue to operate in a manner that
>>they enjoy. However, to those of us that believe in "making as many
>>contacts as possible, on as many different bands as possible, to as
>>many different VHF stations as possible, for as long a distance as
>>possible", this is just not a very efficient method of operation. I
>>want to be WORKING as many stations as possible during the contest
>>period. As I said in Appendix 1, "In the VHF world, you must have
>>precise control of antenna pointing(both directions), frequency, mode,
>>sequencing, and the time of the attempt to make a single contact".
>>Assistance makes this possible as opposed to just hoping that you
>>"bump" into another station on the bands.
>>
>>
>
>Many VHF ops have this unfortunate opinion that finding other stations
>on the air is all accidental or fortuitous. It is more difficult than on
HF.
>It does take skill, and you get better at it with practice.
>
>Consider Marshall's position taken to its logical conclusion. If all,
>or a large percentage, of contest QSOs are being made because of
>off-air scheduling arrangements, how are newcomers going to break into the
action?
>They won't. They will feel excluded, and because most of the so-called
>radio contest is actually taking place off the air, they won't be able
>to connect with it. The joy of operating a radio contest is in
>operating the radio with a wild, unpredictable natural environment -
>not in operating an email client or a web browser.
>
>I would counter-propose that ARRL VHF contests should adopt the same
>philosophy as the (much more successful) ARRL HF contests and ban
>pre-arranged schedules for making contacts during the contest. If
>stations need to find one another on the air, there will be more CQing,
>more tuning, more overall activity to benefit everyone.
>
>
>
>
>
>>Because I believe that "Contacts are King", how and when "assistance"
>>is rendered is just not an important issue. If you make a schedule
>>before the contest or during the contest, is just not relevant.....you
>>still have to WORK the other station while observing the strict
>>definition of what constitutes a VHF contact(Tilton's Rule). Via
>>reflectors and/or propagation loggers, you would know who was on and where
they were.
>>This would allow you to work as many of them as possible. Since
>>everyone(except Rovers) has the Internet these days, there is no
>>advantage to one station over another. On the other side of that
>>coin, it does me no good to know that W7XYZ/R is in CN88 ready to run
>>the bands. I can't work him anyway.
>>
>>
>
>This is an awful idea. How are you operating your radio if you find
>all the stations you "work" via the internet? How fun is that? No fun
>at all. It is so much more challenging, interesting, and fun to not
>know the call sign or grid locator of the other station until you work
them.
>Correctly copying call signs is an important skill that contesting rewards.
>Getting an unknown call sign right despite accents, unusual phonetics,
>fading, weak signals, QRM, noise, etc., etc. can be hard but very
satisfying.
>If you already know the other stations' call sign and grid locator
>before you ever hear their signal, you have completely removed accurate
>copying from the challenge of the QSO. Let's not make VHF contesting
>so boring and easy that nobody wants to do it anymore.
>
>
>
>
>
>>Speaking of rovers, how will all this affect them? The most common
>>complaint that I have heard from rover stations is that they arrive at
>>some new grid, sometimes a rare one, and they cannot "attract"
>>anyone's attention. So they sit there for an hour or two and work
>>only a very few stations.
>>
>>
>
>Getting people off the internet and back to tuning their own radios is
>the best way to fix this. Encouraging people to use the internet more
>(probably with the radio volume turned down so they can concentrate on
>the screen) is the wrong answer to this problem.
>
>
>
>> I have heard this complaint over and over again--from
>>rovers here in the West Gulf Division as well as from rovers around
>>the country. It is very frustrating to the rover guys when this
>>happens--and it seems to happen a lot. An Assisted Rover could call
>>several of the big stations in his area on the cell phone and alert
>>them that "I am in EL28 and ready to run". This would allow the rover
>>to work as many stations as possible--which is, after all, why he is
>>out there. As an added bonus, other stations(both Assisted and
>>Non-Assisted) would hear these contacts being made. This would result
>>in additional contacts that would otherwise never occur.
>>
>>
>
>This is possibly the worst idea ever. Do we really want competitive
>stations to employ a "telephone operator" going through lists of phone
>numbers for all known stations within 800 miles, calling them to make
>sure they get on and work them? Or writing contest spam bots to do the
>same thing every 15 minutes? How is that operating a radio contest?
>Marshall presents a situation that seems harmless enough at first, but
>it doesn't take a lot of forethought to see that the logical conclusion
>of this direction is absurd.
>
>
>
>I hope the ARRL VUAC continues to see value in sponsoring radio
>competitions rather than internet competitions.
>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
|