WAE and Packet

Fri Aug 12 11:10:01 EDT 1994

Some years ago G3FXB, G3SXW and G3MXJ and myself were all regular entrants
in WAE CW. It is an excellent contest. The QTCs make the contest a lot of
fun although you guys outside Europe have it easy, just hit a few keys in
CT. And, you hit Alt-F10 a few times and let us sweat over copying down
10 QTCs in extra quick time!

When DARC decided single ops could use packet Al, G3FXB among others wrote
and asked them to reconsider, maybe instituting separate assisted/unassisted
categories as other major contests do. DARC ignored our representations.
I have good packet links both within the UK and to continental Europe, but
use of packet for mults is just not my idea of a single operator category.
So, I just come on and make a few hundred Qs but I'm not interested in
sending in an entry. There haven't been entries from the other Gs who used
to enter before packet was allowed.

I choose not to use packet as a single op. If you don't have packet, for
geographical or other reasons, DARC have put you at an immediate disadvantage.
It is my view that if we want WAE to be one of the major contests then
assisted/unassisted categories should be introduced. I'm sure it would
increase the level of entry. Anyone from DARC care to comment?

Dave G4BUO

>From Randy A Thompson <K5ZD at world.std.com>  Fri Aug 12 12:48:13 1994
From: Randy A Thompson <K5ZD at world.std.com> (Randy A Thompson)
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 1994 07:48:13 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: WAE and Packet
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9408120729.A26845-0100000 at world.std.com>

As one who is on record as expecting all contests to eventually merge 
single op and single op+packet categories together (because there will be 
virtually no true single ops except for a few die hards), let me try to 
make a few points on this.

Question 1 - Who are contests run for?  We, the hard core contesters, 
believe they are run for us.  They should test us so that we can claim 
our bragging rights and superiority.

The other 95% of the people in the contest think they are run for fun.  
The goal is to encourage activity and most people take the opportunity to 
chase awards, etc.  These people may use packet (they are the reason that 
packet is the growing category it is).

All the WAE Committee has done is remove an administrative head ache that 
is subject to some abuse (is my competition cheating by using packet and 
claiming s/o?).  Now they don't have to worry about these petty accusations.

I am unable to bring myself to operate a contest with packet (real men 
don't need packet).  However, it is not going to go away.

Randy
K5ZD at world.std.com

>From Douglas S. Zwiebel" <0006489207 at mcimail.com  Fri Aug 12 15:20:00 1994
From: Douglas S. Zwiebel" <0006489207 at mcimail.com (Douglas S. Zwiebel)
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 94 09:20 EST
Subject: N6AA vs K5ZD
Message-ID: <30940812142003/0006489207PK2EM at mcimail.com>

Having read Dick's humor (N6AA) followed by Randy's (K5ZD)
"opinion," I am forced to add my comments.

I like what Dick wrote; I like it A LOT!  I do not like
what Randy wrote.

Dick has couched his (what I read as) hostility toward the
"new" trends in contesting in a couple of paragraphs of
neatly and succinctly written sarcasm.   Reading it made me
smile, yet shake my head at the same time.  For me, it was
right on the money.  I know that I am not alone in lamenting
the fading of the contester as I knew him (her).   The skills
and talents required before are indeed changing; some for the
better, and some definitely, decidedly, and absolutely for the
worse.

Memory keyers, no-tune rigs/amps, pre-set rotor controls, dsp
filters, computer logging are real big assets.  I clearly 
remember when RATE was limited by how fast you could WRITE
in the log (keeping it legible for later), not by how fast
you could work them.  What a marvelous improvement!

Things I don't like for contesting are packet (sorry Dick),
master.dat type files (sorry Ken), and "fixing" logs after
the contest, especially though the use of electronic filters.
I also don't like telephone calls, skeds made before the 
contest, and other "creative" methodologies to "improve" score.

I like improvements which make it easier for the operator to
do his thing: ACCURATELY TRANSCRIBE WHAT GOES IN HIS EARS BY
OUTPUTTING IT THROUGH HIS FINGERS.  A pretty simple definition
for me and one which I always fall back on.

Use of packet during contesting is a joke most of the time.
If you are a multi-op, I bet you would get most of them anyway.
For the single ops which Randy spoke about (I think he called
them the 95% of others, or something like that), they don't USE
packet, they RELY on packet.  Having the advantage of checking
logs for nearly 20 years now, I can tell you that ANYONE who looks
at a log these day can CLEARLY see that guys are blindly logging
whatever the screen SAYS is there.  And it's not just the 95% either.

We've all heard it and seen it.  You listen to a pile on a mult
(non-packet) waiting for him to sign his call.  All of a sudden,
there are a ton of new callers, working him and miraculously
knowing his callsign and thanking him for the new one!  These
guys did not make a qso!!!!!!  They don't have a clue who they
worked.  They are relying on packet to get the qso information.
How many of you who use packet actually WAIT to hear the call
you saw on the screen before or after calling or making a Q?    

And the same is true for the most part when using the master.dat
type files.  Or even the CHECK CALL key.  You are changing the
requirement to COPY the call accurately to a multiple choice
question.  I'm not innocent, I've done it myself which is why
I can say that I feel it is wrong.  If I work some guy, say
KA7VFG/DU3 on 15m, and then I hear a "G/DU" on 20, do I wait
until I get the whole call?  No way, I hit the magic keys and
viola...there is the whole call for me.  And I can call him
and work and log him with FULL CONFIDENCE that I "got the call
right."  And 99% of the time it is indeed right!  The operator
skill needed to copy the whole call has been replaced by a file.
To me, this is bad and not desirable.

Think I'm going to extremes?  I don't think so.  I have some
correspondence from a very well known (famous?) DX station
asking for a list (file) of ACTIVE stations on 160 "to enhance
my ability to get the calls right."  Oh come on!  Enhance my
ability?  Get real!  Stuff like this really boils my blood.

Each of us sees "advances" in contesting in a different way.  Each of
remembers "the good old days" in a different way also.  As I said in
the beginning, these are my comments which I felt compelled to reveal
due to the stark contrast of the aforementioned postings.  I am not
buying or selling, just reporting.

And finally on to my problem with Randy's comments.  Randy,
I really think you've got it all wrong.  Bragging rights is
NOT what it's all about.  In every contest there are those
moments in which we just feel good about something we've
done.  The pure PLEASURE and SATISFACTION of self accomplishment.
The JOY of doing something well and doing it well with your peers.
One of the most gratifying and exciting moments in my contest
life was at N2AA (at K2GL) when the guys at N5AU beat us.  I knew
that they had really done their stuff and that this was one of THE
GREAT MOMENTS in contesting history.  I felt as though I was sharing
all this with them; I didn't feel like a loser at all.  I didn't' feel
like I had "lost" any bragging rights.  I love contesting; it's just
a real happy recurring event in my life.  If you think that the serious
contesters (the 5%) are in it for BRAGGING RIGHTS and to be able to
show off their SUPERIORITY, I think you're very, very wrong.  If you
think that the other 95% are in it for FUN, I think you're wrong.  I
think we are ALL (100%) in it for FUN.  (Well, 100% minus K5ZD). 

Win or lose, when it stops being fun, I'll stop contesting.

de Doug/KR2Q

KR2Q at MCIMAIL.COM

>From tree at cmicro.com (Larry Tyree)  Fri Aug 12 14:42:40 1994
From: tree at cmicro.com (Larry Tyree) (Larry Tyree)
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 94 06:42:40 PDT
Subject: DARC and packet
Message-ID: <9408121342.AA10265 at cmicro.com>

When I was living in France, I collected some information about the DARC's
decision to not exclude packet assistance from single op.  Here are some 
of the things I found out.

1. There was a big meeting at the big radio convention that happens in the
summertime somewhere is Germany about this.  This is when it was decided 
to not exclude packet assistance from single op.  However, the rules 
weren't really changed to make this clear, so many people didn't know about
it, unless you were in Europe.

2. The decision was somewhat based on mis information!!  I was told that
the ARRL was called and they said it was okay to have packet assistance.
Well, what the ARRL probably meant is that they do have assisted single
ops, but they still have non assisted single ops.  I think the DARC actually
thought they were being consistent with the ARRL when they made this 
decision.

3. The people who made the decision weren't really regarded as contesters
by the people who were giving me this information.  They probably don't
subscribe to this refelctor (although this may of changed).

4. The recent contest sponsored out of Sweeden also allowed single ops
to use packet, mainly because the WAE does.  This shows that it is 
important to get the WAE "fixed" if you believe there should remain
a single op, unassisted category.

5. While in Europe, I did operate a WAE contest, and my score was about 
40 percent of the big assisted scores in Germany.  It does make a big 
difference.

6. One other thing I would like to share.  While at TI1C this last November
I had a marginal opening on 15 meters to Germany.  There wre probably 50
stations all calling, and they were all S0.  It was very difficult to pick
out the calls.  When the rate was suffering too much, I would QSY and
start over again.  For a minute or two, I would be able to pick out the
calls, but VERY QUICKLY, the pileup grew to the point that it was unmanagable
I believe it was growing that quickly because of packet spotting in Germany.

If I could of avoided being spotted, I could of worked many more German
stations, but I eventually gave up (because the rate was too low) and
went to another band and did something more productive.  In my opinion,
packet is a poison that is ruining the fun of contests for me.

Personally, I am not pursuaded by Randy's comments that it is just something
that is going to happen anyway.  I think we can have separate categories
and meet the needs of everyone.

The "boycott" that the world class G operators have enacted against the 
WAE has not gone un-noticed and was one of the stronger points made to
convince the sponsors of the previously mentioned Sweedish contest to
change their thinking on this.

Hopefully the people who make decisions at the DARC will someday be 
persuaded they made a mistake and create two categories, one for
unassisted single ops and one for assisted single ops...  just like all
the other major contests.

73 Tree N6TR
tree at cmicro.com

>From Steve Harrison <sharriso at sysplan.com>  Fri Aug 12 17:33:37 1994
From: Steve Harrison <sharriso at sysplan.com> (Steve Harrison)
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 1994 12:33:37 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: WAE and Packet
Message-ID: <Pine.3.87.9408121237.B24004-0100000 at eagle>

On Fri, 12 Aug 1994 Dave, G4BUO  wrote:

> I have good packet links both within the UK and to continental Europe, but
> use of packet for mults is just not my idea of a single operator category.
> So, I just come on and make a few hundred Qs but I'm not interested in
> sending in an entry. There haven't been entries from the other Gs who used
> to enter before packet was allowed...... Dave G4BUO
>  
So THAT'S why the lack of activity in the WAE during the last several 
years! The WAE used to be one of my favorite DX contests, but when I 
began to find more Europeans in QSOs than in the contest, I found more 
exciting things to do. Come to think of it, I guess lack of activity is 
one of the contributing reasons I've also quit operating the AA, too. But why
are there so few Asians in their own contest, anyway? 73, Steve KO0U/4 
<sharrison at sysplan.com>

>From Silvergran Jonathan, SEME" <L.J.Silvergran at telub.se  Fri Aug 12 17:02:00 1994
From: Silvergran Jonathan, SEME" <L.J.Silvergran at telub.se (Silvergran Jonathan, SEME)
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 94 16:04:00 +2
Subject: Packet in contests
Message-ID: <2E4BD74B at noak>

In the TOEC field contest, which will be held for the first time in about 
two
weeks, packet is allowed in all categories. We overlooked the implications
of this when we put the rules together, anxious to keep the number of 
categories
as low as possible.

Due to this fact, N6TR expressed the same opinion as Dave/G4BUO posted
to the reflector today, and therefore there is currently no logging software
that handles this contest.

For next years contests, we will change the rules so that packet assisted
stations is referred to the multi op category. (again to keep the # of cat?s 
down...)

Please forgive us for this, and enjoy the contest anyway.

73 and CU in the contest!  (I'll be active from WJ2O...)

Jon, SM3OJR
Contest manager - Top Of Europe Contesters
L.J.Silvergran at telub.se

>From Steve Harrison <sharriso at sysplan.com>  Fri Aug 12 17:41:42 1994
From: Steve Harrison <sharriso at sysplan.com> (Steve Harrison)
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 1994 12:41:42 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: WAE and Packet
Message-ID: <Pine.3.87.9408121242.C24004-0100000 at eagle>

On Fri, 12 Aug 1994, Randy A Thompson wrote:
> 
> I am unable to bring myself to operate a contest with packet (real men 
> don't need packet).  However, it is not going to go away.
>
> Randy K5ZD at world.std.com
> 
One of the more fun things to do after a contest is to log into the local 
Cluster and look at all the spots made during the contest, comparing them 
against your own log to see whether you worked the spottee before or 
after he/she was spotted. In general, I've found a few of my rare mults were 
never spotted, and it seems that more mults that I missed were spotted; 
ergo, had I used packet, I may have wound up with more mults than 
otherwise. But then if I analyze the log in terms of total QSO points 
that I earned during the time period that the missed-but-spotted mult was 
probably available, I usually find that I was just as well off not going 
to the spottee and joining the hordes.

In other words, all other things being equal, the decent operators at 
competitive stations probably score higher when they are not distracted 
by numerous packet spots. I know Randy has been pushing this concept 
among some of the better single-ops (such as K3ZO); and in fact, another 
interesting activity to undertake after the contest results are published is
to compare scores of the unassisted with the assisted. This becomes even 
more interesting when the logs of each participant are available so you 
can compare what each was doing throughout the test. It seems that the 
only time that an assisted entrant is clearly dominant (as compared to an 
unassisted of the same relative station ability) is when the assisted 
operator's abilities are much higher performance.

73, Steve KO0U/4 <sharrison at sysplan.com>