George,
Great post, i thought i was loosing mind reading this stuff about announcements
etc., where you post your grid, call , etc are you kidding me!!?? Where is the
operating ability and skill to pull that out of a contact!
I uses to send my grid during a VHF CQ but i dont so that anymore either just
because it takes away skill of trying to work and copy stations.
I am like you lets operate radio and work contacts the right way
73 Todd WD0T
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 20, 2013, at 4:14 AM, vhfcontesting-request@contesting.com wrote:
> Send VHFcontesting mailing list submissions to
> vhfcontesting@contesting.com
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> vhfcontesting-request@contesting.com
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> vhfcontesting-owner@contesting.com
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of VHFcontesting digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Announcements and VHF contesting.... (Keith Morehouse)
> 2. Announcements and VHF contesting.... (Marshall-K5QE)
> 3. Re: Announcements and VHF contesting.... (George Fremin III)
> 4. Re: Announcements and VHF contesting.... (Lew Sayre)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 17:38:52 -0500
> From: Keith Morehouse <w9rm@calmesapartners.com>
> To: Marshall-K5QE <k5qe@k5qe.com>
> Cc: VHF Contesting <vhfcontesting@contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] Announcements and VHF contesting....
> Message-ID:
> <CACCAnzUgD6tfNeTsSLLts9AhQSw4w-_ZLpfMFbDaaFWxHQPkqQ@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Allowing such a thing for digital operation is fine and in line with
> what CQ allows in their VHF test. Personally, I would take this one
> step FURTHER and allow ANNOUNCEMENTS for any band or mode at any time,
> for any class of entry. For example:
>
> (announce) W9RM DM58 144.210 CQ CW EAST
>
> The idea is to get the activity level up and for the vast number of
> non-serious contesters, knowing someone was there and trying to work
> guys could do it. Sure, in the beginning, the chats might be clogged
> to overflow with these messages, but, in the long term, I believe only
> those who are successful in working people after one of these
> ANNONCEMENTS would persist in doing it.
>
> Jay W9RM
>
>
> Keith J Morehouse
> Managing Partner
> Calmesa Partners G.P.
> Montrose, CO
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 4:55 PM, Marshall-K5QE <k5qe@k5qe.com> wrote:
>> Hello to everyone interested in the "Assistance" concept for VHF
>> contesting....
>>
>> My last post was made at 2AM, so I am not sure how coherent it was.
>> Hopefully, not too bad.....
>>
>> Les-N1LF made an observation recently that was, I believe, terribly
>> important. He observed that A)All VHF contesting is local, B)Those in the
>> famous "Golden Corridor" have a tremendous advantage over the rest of us who
>> live in the sticks(the high population density of hams), and that C)To a
>> very large extent, those that oppose "assistance" live in the NE. LES, I
>> hope I have stated the gist of your post correctly.
>>
>> Jay-W9RM made a post wherein he talked about ANNOUNCEMENTS rather than
>> Assistance. I think that this is a genius idea. The concept of
>> "assistance" has become way too fuzzy and ill defined. It means different
>> things to different folks. The Anti-Assistance folks have taken advantage
>> of this in various nefarious ways. To way too many, "assistance" means
>> making real time schedules during the contest....which I don't really see
>> anything wrong with, but the legacy HFers go into heart fibrillations
>> whenever this is mentioned. By the way, Announcements would make "real time
>> scheduling" unnecessary.
>>
>> I propose that we start talking about making ANNOUNCEMENTS in VHF
>> contesting. An ANNOUNCEMENT will have to be carefully defined to prevent
>> abuse. Although CQ does not mention announcements, it is clear that their
>> concept is that IF you are calling CQ on digital meteor scatter(MS) or
>> digital EME, you can announce Call, Frequency, and Sequence ONLY on the
>> Internet reflectors, packet clusters, whatever. Such an announcement does
>> not convey any QSO information, only that you are calling CQ and where you
>> are located. When you receive a call and get a good decode, you will
>> receive both his call and your call, so all QSO information has passed over
>> the radio path--thus satisfying Tilton's Rule.
>>
>> I propose that an Announcement should be defined to be your Call, Frequency,
>> and Sequence ONLY. The idea of posting Call, Frequency, and Sequence ONLY
>> was first brought forward by a very well known Pacific Northwest VHFer(and a
>> couple of others as I recall), so it is not my idea, but it is an incredibly
>> good idea. If we follow the CQ idea, an Announcement would be permitted only
>> for stations calling CQ on digital MS or digital EME.
>>
>> ASIDE1: Why allow Announcements for those modes and not for others??
>> Digital EME signals are quite often not detectable by ear. So, you could
>> "turn the dial" until the cows come home and you would never hear a weak
>> digital EME signal. You would tune right past it. However, I work such
>> signals all the time and others can as well, IF they can find them. If I
>> Announce "CQ K5QE 144.142MHz Second" then everyone knows where I am. Just
>> tune there and see if you can work me. I want to stress this--An
>> Announcement does not WORK anyone, you have to actually do that yourself.
>> Only then can you put them in the log. As Jay-W9RM has so carefully pointed
>> out, if someone intent on cheating were to enter me into his log just based
>> on my Announcement, when the log checking process was applied, the bogus QSO
>> would be removed from his log and he would be penalized points. It seems to
>> me that no one is stupid enough to do this.....but I am probably wrong on
>> that.
>>
>> ASIDE2: Meteor scatter is not a weak signal mode, but signals are
>> essentially random in time. If you carefully tune a given frequency, say
>> 50.265MHz, you most likely will not hear anything. After you tune away
>> trying to find a signal somewhere else, a large burn may occur. What this
>> means is that tuning for MS signals is essentially a waste of time....you
>> will very likely never hear anything. A simple Announcement solves this
>> problem very nicely. Now stations all around the country know where I am
>> calling CQ. IF they are within MS range, they can try to call me and
>> hopefully a QSO will result. This system is FAR superior to the system that
>> we now use(everyone calls on 50.260MHz with an offset frequency where the
>> QSO is supposed to actually take place). Seasoned MS ops know the current
>> system and for them it works OK. Newer ops really don't understand what is
>> going on and contacts with them are frequently lost because they don't
>> understand the idea of moving to make a QSO. An Announcement would tell
>> everyone where I am calling CQ with no need for the "bait and switch" method
>> we now have.
>>
>> I believe that we should all contact our Director and request that
>> Announcements be allowed in VHF contesting for digital MS and digital EME.
>> This is not going to rend the fabric of VHF contesting, but it sure will
>> make it a lot more fun as dozens of "rare" grids will now find their way
>> into the logs. I don't think that this is too much of a stretch for the
>> folks at the League. If it is, then we are DOOMED as my son likes to say.
>>
>> I forwarded my previous post to my Director, and I will do the same with
>> this one. We need to try to get the Directors to understand what needs to
>> be done....
>>
>> 73 Marshall K5QE
>> _______________________________________________
>> VHFcontesting mailing list
>> VHFcontesting@contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 19:26:45 -0500
> From: Marshall-K5QE <k5qe@k5qe.com>
> To: VHF Contesting <vhfcontesting@contesting.com>
> Subject: [VHFcontesting] Announcements and VHF contesting....
> Message-ID: <523B9645.8070703@k5qe.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Hello everyone....A first possibility here is to just make a special
> "exemption" for such a rover post. It must be emphasized that ALL the
> contact information must still be exchanged via the radio path. This
> happens with rovers now. When I work a rover in EL18 on 2M and move him
> to 222, then I KNOW that he is in EL18, but to make a complete QSO, I
> must hear the EL18 from him on 222. I think that 99% of all operators
> adhere to this method.
>
> Failing that, this objection is easily worked around. Just post W9FZ/R
> 144.225 31.2N 93.5W......WinGrid will immediately tell you that Bruce is
> in EM31 without posting any piece of the QSO information. Of course, by
> convention, we could omit the N and the W. Unfortunately, the post has
> gotten much more complicated just to avoid saying the Grid name.
>
> Such an Announcement by rovers WILL increase the number of rover QSOs
> made.....and I think that is a good thing. As I posted before, we need
> a careful definition of what an Announcement is. If this suggestion is
> implemented, then a Rover Announcement would have a different form from
> a fixed station Announcement......nothing wrong with that.
>
> I have posted ideas similar to this in the past and I think it is a very
> good idea. The main complaint that I have heard from rovers is that
> they arrive at some god-forsaken place, trying to give out some rare
> grid, but cannot attract the attention of anyone to work. It is highly
> frustrating....the rover does not work anyone(or very few) and you don't
> work him either.
>
> I believe that this proposal should be moved forward....and on the Fast
> Track.
>
> 73 Marshall K5QE
>
>
> On 9/19/2013 5:47 PM, Jack W6NF wrote:
>> On 9/19/2013 5:35 PM, Todd Brandenburg wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> That ROVER operators also be allowed to post announcements, stating
>>> call, current grid (the one you just crossed into), and the freq
>>> you're monitoring. Add sequence if you're operating the digital
>>> modes, omit if not. i.e. for Bruce W9FZ, it would simply be "W9FZ/r
>>> now in EM04xx, listening 144.225". No need for extra info- bands one
>>> is operating, power, antennas, etc. That can be posted before the
>>> contest, on this reflector and elsewhere.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> The problem is the inclusion of the grid in the announcement provides
>> the single piece of information that constitutes the contest exchange
>> and is not permissible.
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 18:20:09 -0700
> From: George Fremin III <geoiii@kkn.net>
> To: Marshall-K5QE <k5qe@k5qe.com>
> Cc: VHF Contesting <vhfcontesting@contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] Announcements and VHF contesting....
> Message-ID: <20130920012007.GA6322@kkn.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 04:55:50PM -0500, Marshall-K5QE wrote:
>>
>
>> that C)To a very large extent, those that oppose "assistance" live in
>> the NE. LES, I hope I have stated the gist of your post correctly.
>
> I do not live in the NE and I would like to maintain a category that
> is assistance free.
>
>>
>> Jay-W9RM made a post wherein he talked about ANNOUNCEMENTS rather than
>> Assistance. I think that this is a genius idea. The concept of
>> "assistance" has become way too fuzzy and ill defined.
>
> Yes - this is a big problem when talking about this be it on HF or
> VHF. It has been clear to me for years that whenever this subject
> comes up there is much confusion over what is even being talked about.
>
>
>> different things to different folks. The Anti-Assistance folks have
>> taken advantage of this in various nefarious ways.
>
> I do not think that is the case. I also do not think that it is
> useful for you to generalize people in categories just because they do
> not agree with how you think the rules should be written. I think
> the world is more nuanced.
>
> I am sure you have already put me in the Anti-Assistance / old school
> / HF contester bucket and as a result you automatically discard
> anything that I have to say. And if that is the case then I doubt you
> will ever hear anything that I have to say on the subject.
>
> I did my first contest when I was still in high school in about 1979
> or 1978. These were HF contests - I did no have the money to buy any
> equipment for the VHF/UHF bands. I was exposed to VHF by a local that
> did some MS and EME and I think I might have a made a few contacts in
> a VHF contest at this time.
>
> I have been doing VHF contests since the mid 1980's. I have operated
> from the WB0DRL as well as doing a number of pre rover category rover
> efforts as WB5VZL here in Texas.
>
> When I helped build the W5KFT contest station I started doing VHF
> contests both single op and multi-op before building my own station in
> 2001 where I have done every June contest as both single op and
> multi-op since getting my station on the air. I really enjoy VHF
> contesting. I enjoy the challenge and I also enjoy the fact that I
> never know if the weekend will be dead or full of propagation. I
> enjoy the 300 qso weekends almost as much as the 2000 qso weekends.
>
> I think that I am more than some clueless HF contester.
>
> When I do HF contests I usually do not use any form of spotting
> assistance. In HF contests this comes in the form of DX clusters and
> Reverse Beacon Network (RBN) generated frequency and callsign
> information. Chat rooms are not much used on HF except for 160
> meters.
>
> In HF contests the above mentioned assistance is almost always allowed
> for multi-op stations. But not for Single op unassisted stations.
> There are categories for Single Op Assisted in most contests and
> these categories have become very popular. I sometimes enter these
> contests in the assisted category.
>
> Most rules on assisted for both multi-op and single op read
> something like this:
>
>> From the CQ WW rules:
> http://cqww.com/rules.htm
>
> "2. QSO alerting assistance: The use of any technology or other source
> that provides call sign or multiplier identification along with
> frequency information to the operator. It includes, but is not limited
> to, use of DX cluster, packet, local or remote call sign and frequency
> decoding technology (e.g., CW Skimmer or Reverse Beacon Network), or
> operating arrangements involving other individuals."
>
> In addition these rules state that:
>
> "4. Self-spotting or asking to be spotted is not permitted."
>
> "8. All requests for contacts, responses to calls, and copying of call
> signs and contest exchanges must be accomplished during the contest
> period using the mode and frequencies of the contest."
>
> "9. Correction of logged call signs and exchanges after the contest by
> using any database, recordings, email or other methods of confirming
> QSOs is not allowed."
>
> And then from the FAQ on these rules:
> http://cqww.com/rules_faq.htm
>
> "
> How can I tell if I am Single Operator or Single Operator Assisted?
>
> The rules for Single Operator state "all operating and logging
> functions are performed by one person (the operator)." The CQ WW
> Contest has two classes of entry for stations with only one operator:
> Single Operator and Single Operator Assisted.
>
> You are Single Operator IF you (and only you) *locate AND identify*
> every call sign that you put in your log. Locate means to tune in each
> signal. Identify means to determine the call sign of the station you
> are working. Do not use any outside tools such as the DX Cluster or
> RBN network to locate new contacts.
>
> If you cannot say this, then you should enter the Single Operator
> Assisted category.
> "
>
> Another good resource for understanding what these terms mean is
> this FAQ by the ARRL:
>
> http://www.arrl.org/files/file/Contest%20-%20General/HF-FAQ.pdf
>
>
>
>> To way too many,
>> "assistance" means making real time schedules during the
>> contest....which I don't really see anything wrong with, but the legacy
>> HFers go into heart fibrillations whenever this is mentioned. By the
>> way, Announcements would make "real time scheduling" unnecessary.
>
> I have no problem making realtime schedules during the contest
> if you use the bands you are using in the contest. But if you do
> this by calling them on the phone, or sending an email, or sending
> them an instant message or on some vhf chat page - then I feel you
> are no longer operating in a *radio* contest. You are turning it
> into a contest to see who has the biggest Rolodex or has the most
> IM buddies or internet chat contest.
>
>>
>> I propose that we start talking about making ANNOUNCEMENTS in VHF
>> contesting. An ANNOUNCEMENT will have to be carefully defined to
>> prevent abuse. Although CQ does not mention announcements, it is clear
>> that their concept is that IF you are calling CQ on digital meteor
>> scatter(MS) or digital EME, you can announce Call, Frequency, and
>> Sequence ONLY on the Internet reflectors, packet clusters, whatever.
>> Such an announcement does not convey any QSO information, only that you
>> are calling CQ and where you are located. When you receive a call and
>> get a good decode, you will receive both his call and your call, so all
>> QSO information has passed over the radio path--thus satisfying Tilton's
>> Rule.
>
> In the HF world this would be called "self spotting". I can see why
> you would want to do it - it does make make making a contact much
> easier. And if you come back and tell me that VHF is different - I
> will tell you that VHF is not that much different. I can assure you
> that if this were allowed in HF contests we would all make many more
> contacts. Hard contacts on the high bands and the low bands. All of
> the marginal contacts that are hard even if you know when and where
> and who a station is. Long path on the low bands and scatter on the
> high bands. It is all just like doing a VHF contact. Signals are weak
> and you have to be beaming the right way to hear a station and it is
> very easy to miss such weak signals.
>
>
>> ASIDE1: Why allow Announcements for those modes and not for others??
>> Digital EME signals are quite often not detectable by ear.
>
> But this is unfair - why not allow it for all modes?
>
>> could "turn the dial" until the cows come home and you would never hear
>> a weak digital EME signal. You would tune right past it. However, I
>> work such signals all the time and others can as well, IF they can find
>> them. If I Announce "CQ K5QE 144.142MHz Second" then everyone knows
>> where I am. Just tune there and see if you can work me.
>
> How is this different then SSB or CW? I work plenty of stations that
> are VERY weak that if I knew they were there I could work or at least
> give it a go surfing the QSB and getting the beams dialed in. If you
> were to allow this for digital it should be allowed for all modes.
>
>
>> ASIDE2: Meteor scatter is not a weak signal mode, but signals are
>> essentially random in time.
>
> Just like those few minute peaks that we used all the time work some
> long path QSO on 160 meters.
>
>
>> Announcements be allowed in VHF contesting for digital MS and digital
>> EME.
>
> Why only digital?
>
> I do not like the idea of allowing self spotting - as you say it will
> be abused in some way - and it turns the radio contest into an
> internet assisted announcement contest. But if you do want to add
> these rules I hope that you do not only do it for digital modes.
> Is this a digital only contest? I dont think so. Those of us that
> have trained ourselves to copy weak signals in the noise with our ears
> should not be discriminated against. The idea of a contest is to test
> the operators and the stations. If I as a skilled operator can overcome
> the limitations of my station as compared to someone else should that
> not be rewarded?
>
> The fun part of me is in all contests is testing my operating skills
> as well as my station building skills. There are many things that go
> into producing winning contest scores and operating skill is a huge
> part of that for me.
>
> I would like to leave you with this thought - the rules for all
> contests do not need to be the same. If they were it would be boring.
> If the CQ contest allows these things then operate it. Or create a new
> contest that has these rules. In fact if you wanted to you could run
> your own contest with the rules you like during one of the ARRL vhf
> contests. You would not be able to submit your score for the ARRL
> event but if you think your ideas are really good perhaps everyone
> will enter your event instead. If nothing else you could start
> testing your ideas to see how they work in practice.
>
> I know that I have rambled on a bit - but anyone that is not
> clear on what assistance is perhaps a reading of the rules
> and FAQs from some contests will help define it a bit more.
>
> Or ask questions if you are unsure.
>
> --
> George Fremin III - K5TR
> geoiii@kkn.net
> http://www.kkn.net/~k5tr
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 02:14:01 -0700
> From: Lew Sayre <lew@dsl-only.net>
> Cc: VHF Contesting <vhfcontesting@contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] Announcements and VHF contesting....
> Message-ID:
> <CA+6hS7iCA7w7_Y_KY81X+cCTAPU5iK2d_GGF5jwwJZ7rT3haRA@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> George is spot on. I don't live in the NE corridor and I would appreciate
> an assistance-free category to do radio contesting in the VHF and up bands.
> Seems like during the last "discussion" of assistance we went around
> pretty much the same way as people were lobbying CQ to allow assistance.
> I pointed out that the only recourse for a lot of operators who did not
> like assistance was to not support the CQ magazine who sponsored the
> contest.
> The rules were changed.
> Did you get the August issue of CQ? Have you read the discussions
> regarding CQ magazine lately?
> The point here is that there is a large silent majority of operators
> who like to find and then work stations without help. They are being heard
> by the magazine now.
> Radio is a lot of receiving with some transmitting. Assistance cuts
> way down on the receive part of the equation because it will tell you who
> and where. Sure you have to transmit to get the grid square and report and
> make sure that the spot is the station you are hearing, but that is the fun
> part, right?
> I really hope that you are successful in getting the rules changed to
> allow for all the assistance possible in radio contesting. Allow the
> internet, telephones, chat rooms, whatever. That will make it easy for
> people to make contacts. That appears to be important in enhancing your
> fun while on the radio, so you should agitate vigorously for that. Maybe
> that will get more people on the air. Maybe that will make everybody happy
> to be transmitting a lot more than they are receiving.
> But please leave a non-assisted category for guys like George and me.
> Don't lump us in with a bunch of spoon fed people sitting in front of
> radios. Don't denigrate the skills we have developed by knowing
> propagation, different sounds of static, ability to effectively use the big
> knob on the front of the radio by putting us in a category that says those
> skills don't count.
> We both should be able to have fun when we do radio. Just don't
> relegate me, George and a bunch of Ops who abhor assistance into obscurity
> while you pursue your goals. .
> 73 and I remain,
> Lew W7EW
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 6:20 PM, George Fremin III <geoiii@kkn.net> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 04:55:50PM -0500, Marshall-K5QE wrote:
>>>
>>
>>> that C)To a very large extent, those that oppose "assistance" live in
>>> the NE. LES, I hope I have stated the gist of your post correctly.
>>
>> I do not live in the NE and I would like to maintain a category that
>> is assistance free.
>>
>>>
>>> Jay-W9RM made a post wherein he talked about ANNOUNCEMENTS rather than
>>> Assistance. I think that this is a genius idea. The concept of
>>> "assistance" has become way too fuzzy and ill defined.
>>
>> Yes - this is a big problem when talking about this be it on HF or
>> VHF. It has been clear to me for years that whenever this subject
>> comes up there is much confusion over what is even being talked about.
>>
>>
>>> different things to different folks. The Anti-Assistance folks have
>>> taken advantage of this in various nefarious ways.
>>
>> I do not think that is the case. I also do not think that it is
>> useful for you to generalize people in categories just because they do
>> not agree with how you think the rules should be written. I think
>> the world is more nuanced.
>>
>> I am sure you have already put me in the Anti-Assistance / old school
>> / HF contester bucket and as a result you automatically discard
>> anything that I have to say. And if that is the case then I doubt you
>> will ever hear anything that I have to say on the subject.
>>
>> I did my first contest when I was still in high school in about 1979
>> or 1978. These were HF contests - I did no have the money to buy any
>> equipment for the VHF/UHF bands. I was exposed to VHF by a local that
>> did some MS and EME and I think I might have a made a few contacts in
>> a VHF contest at this time.
>>
>> I have been doing VHF contests since the mid 1980's. I have operated
>> from the WB0DRL as well as doing a number of pre rover category rover
>> efforts as WB5VZL here in Texas.
>>
>> When I helped build the W5KFT contest station I started doing VHF
>> contests both single op and multi-op before building my own station in
>> 2001 where I have done every June contest as both single op and
>> multi-op since getting my station on the air. I really enjoy VHF
>> contesting. I enjoy the challenge and I also enjoy the fact that I
>> never know if the weekend will be dead or full of propagation. I
>> enjoy the 300 qso weekends almost as much as the 2000 qso weekends.
>>
>> I think that I am more than some clueless HF contester.
>>
>> When I do HF contests I usually do not use any form of spotting
>> assistance. In HF contests this comes in the form of DX clusters and
>> Reverse Beacon Network (RBN) generated frequency and callsign
>> information. Chat rooms are not much used on HF except for 160
>> meters.
>>
>> In HF contests the above mentioned assistance is almost always allowed
>> for multi-op stations. But not for Single op unassisted stations.
>> There are categories for Single Op Assisted in most contests and
>> these categories have become very popular. I sometimes enter these
>> contests in the assisted category.
>>
>> Most rules on assisted for both multi-op and single op read
>> something like this:
>>
>> From the CQ WW rules:
>> http://cqww.com/rules.htm
>>
>> "2. QSO alerting assistance: The use of any technology or other source
>> that provides call sign or multiplier identification along with
>> frequency information to the operator. It includes, but is not limited
>> to, use of DX cluster, packet, local or remote call sign and frequency
>> decoding technology (e.g., CW Skimmer or Reverse Beacon Network), or
>> operating arrangements involving other individuals."
>>
>> In addition these rules state that:
>>
>> "4. Self-spotting or asking to be spotted is not permitted."
>>
>> "8. All requests for contacts, responses to calls, and copying of call
>> signs and contest exchanges must be accomplished during the contest
>> period using the mode and frequencies of the contest."
>>
>> "9. Correction of logged call signs and exchanges after the contest by
>> using any database, recordings, email or other methods of confirming
>> QSOs is not allowed."
>>
>> And then from the FAQ on these rules:
>> http://cqww.com/rules_faq.htm
>>
>> "
>> How can I tell if I am Single Operator or Single Operator Assisted?
>>
>> The rules for Single Operator state "all operating and logging
>> functions are performed by one person (the operator)." The CQ WW
>> Contest has two classes of entry for stations with only one operator:
>> Single Operator and Single Operator Assisted.
>>
>> You are Single Operator IF you (and only you) *locate AND identify*
>> every call sign that you put in your log. Locate means to tune in each
>> signal. Identify means to determine the call sign of the station you
>> are working. Do not use any outside tools such as the DX Cluster or
>> RBN network to locate new contacts.
>>
>> If you cannot say this, then you should enter the Single Operator
>> Assisted category.
>> "
>>
>> Another good resource for understanding what these terms mean is
>> this FAQ by the ARRL:
>>
>> http://www.arrl.org/files/file/Contest%20-%20General/HF-FAQ.pdf
>>
>>
>>
>>> To way too many,
>>> "assistance" means making real time schedules during the
>>> contest....which I don't really see anything wrong with, but the legacy
>>> HFers go into heart fibrillations whenever this is mentioned. By the
>>> way, Announcements would make "real time scheduling" unnecessary.
>>
>> I have no problem making realtime schedules during the contest
>> if you use the bands you are using in the contest. But if you do
>> this by calling them on the phone, or sending an email, or sending
>> them an instant message or on some vhf chat page - then I feel you
>> are no longer operating in a *radio* contest. You are turning it
>> into a contest to see who has the biggest Rolodex or has the most
>> IM buddies or internet chat contest.
>>
>>>
>>> I propose that we start talking about making ANNOUNCEMENTS in VHF
>>> contesting. An ANNOUNCEMENT will have to be carefully defined to
>>> prevent abuse. Although CQ does not mention announcements, it is clear
>>> that their concept is that IF you are calling CQ on digital meteor
>>> scatter(MS) or digital EME, you can announce Call, Frequency, and
>>> Sequence ONLY on the Internet reflectors, packet clusters, whatever.
>>> Such an announcement does not convey any QSO information, only that you
>>> are calling CQ and where you are located. When you receive a call and
>>> get a good decode, you will receive both his call and your call, so all
>>> QSO information has passed over the radio path--thus satisfying Tilton's
>>> Rule.
>>
>> In the HF world this would be called "self spotting". I can see why
>> you would want to do it - it does make make making a contact much
>> easier. And if you come back and tell me that VHF is different - I
>> will tell you that VHF is not that much different. I can assure you
>> that if this were allowed in HF contests we would all make many more
>> contacts. Hard contacts on the high bands and the low bands. All of
>> the marginal contacts that are hard even if you know when and where
>> and who a station is. Long path on the low bands and scatter on the
>> high bands. It is all just like doing a VHF contact. Signals are weak
>> and you have to be beaming the right way to hear a station and it is
>> very easy to miss such weak signals.
>>
>>
>>> ASIDE1: Why allow Announcements for those modes and not for others??
>>> Digital EME signals are quite often not detectable by ear.
>>
>> But this is unfair - why not allow it for all modes?
>>
>>> could "turn the dial" until the cows come home and you would never hear
>>> a weak digital EME signal. You would tune right past it. However, I
>>> work such signals all the time and others can as well, IF they can find
>>> them. If I Announce "CQ K5QE 144.142MHz Second" then everyone knows
>>> where I am. Just tune there and see if you can work me.
>>
>> How is this different then SSB or CW? I work plenty of stations that
>> are VERY weak that if I knew they were there I could work or at least
>> give it a go surfing the QSB and getting the beams dialed in. If you
>> were to allow this for digital it should be allowed for all modes.
>>
>>
>>> ASIDE2: Meteor scatter is not a weak signal mode, but signals are
>>> essentially random in time.
>>
>> Just like those few minute peaks that we used all the time work some
>> long path QSO on 160 meters.
>>
>>
>>> Announcements be allowed in VHF contesting for digital MS and digital
>>> EME.
>>
>> Why only digital?
>>
>> I do not like the idea of allowing self spotting - as you say it will
>> be abused in some way - and it turns the radio contest into an
>> internet assisted announcement contest. But if you do want to add
>> these rules I hope that you do not only do it for digital modes.
>> Is this a digital only contest? I dont think so. Those of us that
>> have trained ourselves to copy weak signals in the noise with our ears
>> should not be discriminated against. The idea of a contest is to test
>> the operators and the stations. If I as a skilled operator can overcome
>> the limitations of my station as compared to someone else should that
>> not be rewarded?
>>
>> The fun part of me is in all contests is testing my operating skills
>> as well as my station building skills. There are many things that go
>> into producing winning contest scores and operating skill is a huge
>> part of that for me.
>>
>> I would like to leave you with this thought - the rules for all
>> contests do not need to be the same. If they were it would be boring.
>> If the CQ contest allows these things then operate it. Or create a new
>> contest that has these rules. In fact if you wanted to you could run
>> your own contest with the rules you like during one of the ARRL vhf
>> contests. You would not be able to submit your score for the ARRL
>> event but if you think your ideas are really good perhaps everyone
>> will enter your event instead. If nothing else you could start
>> testing your ideas to see how they work in practice.
>>
>> I know that I have rambled on a bit - but anyone that is not
>> clear on what assistance is perhaps a reading of the rules
>> and FAQs from some contests will help define it a bit more.
>>
>> Or ask questions if you are unsure.
>>
>> --
>> George Fremin III - K5TR
>> geoiii@kkn.net
>> http://www.kkn.net/~k5tr
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> VHFcontesting mailing list
>> VHFcontesting@contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> VHFcontesting mailing list
> VHFcontesting@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of VHFcontesting Digest, Vol 129, Issue 26
> **********************************************
>
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
|