PACKET RACKET
bill.lumnitzer at paonline.com
bill.lumnitzer at paonline.com
Wed Sep 21 12:03:05 EDT 1994
The advent of packet spotting in contesting is nothing more than a
technological improvement. Decades ago, many hams resisted the change
from am to ssb but I don't recall any special categories in phone
contests to differentiate between the two modes. Competitors compete.
As technology improves the top competitors try to follow the leading
edge to stay on top. There is nothing that says you cannot continue
to use am in a phone contest even today, but who would? If the technology
is there, use it! If there isn't an active packet cluster in your area
create one! Or move to where there is one. Life presents many choices and
we have to live by the ones we make. Whether to use two radios, an Alpha 87A,
or packet is up to YOU. If the choices YOU make, make you less competitive,
Cie le Vie...
(Flame filter --> ON) ;->
73 de Bill, N6CQ/3 (n6cq at paonline.com)
>From Kurszewski Chad" <kurszewski_chad at macmail1.csg.mot.com Wed Sep 21 11:27:06 1994
From: Kurszewski Chad" <kurszewski_chad at macmail1.csg.mot.com (Kurszewski Chad)
Date: 21 Sep 1994 10:27:06 U
Subject: TWO RADIOES
Message-ID: <199409211528.AA14127 at pobox.mot.com>
WE9V wrote:
>> Before internet, none of this bitching would have happened.
Frank, KE4GY replied:
> I feel like what is happening here is that people now have an easy way
> to express their opinions.
Opinions are good. Facts are better (ie. station grounding, elevated
verticals, etc.) Everyone is titled to have an opinion.
> I don't believe that these opinions are malicious which is what seperates
> complaining from bitching.
I feel that it is malicious when rule changes are suggested just to make their
own scores better, and discredit mine or anyone else's. Making rules so strict
only inhibits innovation. If something is CLEARLY UNFAIR or not the INTENTION
of the rules, that should be cleared up. But just because I can listen in two
places at once doesn't seem so unfair. I only have one transmitted signal.
The same thing can be accomplished by calling alternating CQ's on alternate
VFO's on different bands. Next I won't be able to use my FT-1000 since it has
two receivers.
If the rules aren't broke, they don't need ANY fixing. If people don't like
CQWW's definition of M/S, enter M/M, or S/O, or enter ARRL's M/S. If you don't
like ARRL's definition of M/S (it is a good one, just not as fun as CQWW's,
that's MY opinion) enter M/2, or enter CQWW's M/S.
I don't ask that they change the rules...I change how I operate to fit the
rules given to me.
> It is, however, easy to call this bitching, especially if your opinion is
> different.
Thanks for your opinion Frank. And thanks to others for their thoughts. I
wouldn't have thought of using two radios on my own. Now I wouldn't think of
doing it any other way (as long as it isn't against the rules.)
Chad WE9V
>From Steve Harrison <sharriso at sysplan.com> Fri Sep 9 00:37:52 1994
From: Steve Harrison <sharriso at sysplan.com> (Steve Harrison)
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 1994 11:37:52 +30000
Subject: TWO RADIOES (sic)
Message-ID: <Pine.SGI.3.90.940921113705.17731B-100000 at eagle>
On Tue, 20 Sep 1994, Ray Rocker wrote:
> That's because the only ones who get heard on 3830 are the Big Guns.
> On Internet, I can shout as loud as everyone else. Ain't it great?
>
> -- ray WQ5L "will qualify for an asterisk, someway, somehow"
>
Boy, did you hit THAT nail on the head, Ray! Steve, KO0U/4
>From Daniel R. Violette" <Daniel_R._Violette at smtpgty.anatcp.rockwell.com Wed Sep 21 17:50:23 1994
From: Daniel R. Violette" <Daniel_R._Violette at smtpgty.anatcp.rockwell.com (Daniel R. Violette)
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 94 08:50:23 PST
Subject: Radio Cops
Message-ID: <9408217801.AA780162737 at smtpgty.anatcp.rockwell.com>
Remember that CT in the single op unassisted mode does not allow
received packets but allows you to send them. I don't know why a big
single op would put out packets for others. Maybe to get the the
others somewhere else on someone he has already worked so he has a
clearer band. Of course, ways around this too. Put in CT your single
assisted and change it after the contest. But like someone else
mentioned, must be somewhat of an honor system or everything is
meaningless. Maybe a separate contest with no rules other than no
duping on same band, one signal at any instant and FCC Part 97 and see
who is most inovative.
73,
Dan KI6X
e-mail: Daniel_R._Violette at smtpgty.anatcp.rockwell.com
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Radio Cops
Author: "Tim Coad" <Tim_Coad at smtp.esl.com> at smtpgty
Date: 09/20/94 05:30 PM
9/20/94 1:33 PM
Hmmm....Would it be easy to have the cluster managers send in a file of all
calls that were connected to the cluster during a contest?
But, I guess this wouldnt help much, since if someone was going to cheat,
they could either connect with a different call or just monitor the traffic
without connecting.
Actually Im not too worried about people who cheat.
If they have to cheat to beat us real unassisted types,
then that says a lot doesn't it.
NU6S - Tim
>From Rudolf Torsten Clay <torsten at mephisto.physics.uiuc.edu> Wed Sep 21 16:52:54 1994
From: Rudolf Torsten Clay <torsten at mephisto.physics.uiuc.edu> (Rudolf Torsten Clay)
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 94 10:52:54 CDT
Subject: Two Radio Stn for Field Day? 1A or 2A??
Message-ID: <199409211552.AA05961 at mephisto.physics.uiuc.edu>
There is a ten-minute rule (or maybe 15 min?) for FD. It would be 1A, but you
have to stay on a given band for 15 minutes.
Here's some more ideas for station info:
*@ 2 radios, but 2nd is tube type.
*? 2 radios, but totally confused trying to use them in sprint.
| Full size vertical
_ Low wires
|_ Vertical+beverage
L Vertical with small ground system
! elevated vertical
i small vertical
o AEA/MFJ mini loop
<o> AEA/MFJ mini loop indoors
) random wire
& REALLY random wire
Torsten n4ogw at uiuc.edu
>
> Would a two radio station for Field Day be considered 1A or 2A?? The number
> of transmitters could still be "1", just have two RX!
>
> Len WF2V
> "The Len & John Beer Company" FD team
>
>From Steve Harrison <sharriso at sysplan.com> Fri Sep 9 00:52:29 1994
From: Steve Harrison <sharriso at sysplan.com> (Steve Harrison)
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 1994 11:52:29 +30000
Subject: More packet racket
Message-ID: <Pine.SGI.3.90.940921113844.17731C-100000 at eagle>
On Tue, 20 Sep 1994, Larry Tyree wrote:
> .................. The DLs who do this, have scores about 40 percent higher
> than those who don't use/have packet.
>
Not only that, but because each "state" in Europe is a multiplier to
every other, spotting of yourself by the large multi-multis is worthwhile
to Europeans whereas in the States, spotting yourself does absolutely
nothing to bring in either new points or multipliers in most DX contests.
Tree's observation above points out why there was probably so little resistance
among DLs to the WAE rules being changed to allow packet: there is value
in almost all spots to most other Europeans. There is value in
almost all spots in the WAE to other world-wide contestants also; but in
the US, our top contesters are more used to domestic contests where packet
spotting infrequently contributes to our scores (and is even detrimental
when it disturbs our run rates); so we have a different viewpoint of
the value of spotting and in general, believe it to be of somewhat less
overall value to the individual contester.
73, Steve KO0U/4 <sharrison at sysplan.com>
>From mraz at maverick.aud.alcatel.com (Kris I. Mraz) Wed Sep 21 16:58:41 1994
From: mraz at maverick.aud.alcatel.com (Kris I. Mraz) (Kris I. Mraz)
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 94 10:58:41 CDT
Subject: What was it like?
Message-ID: <9409211558.AA00697 at maverick.aud.alcatel.com>
Bill, N6CQ/3 said:
>
> Decades ago, many hams resisted the change
> from am to ssb but I don't recall any special categories in phone
> contests to differentiate between the two modes. Competitors compete.
>
When I got my novice ticket in '67 there was still some AM activity but
I never got to hear a big contest when AM was king. Can someone
describe what this was like? Were there thousands of heterodynes across
the band? How did contesters deal with this?
Kris AA5UO
mraz at aud.alcatel.com
>From Steve Harrison <sharriso at sysplan.com> Fri Sep 9 02:02:01 1994
From: Steve Harrison <sharriso at sysplan.com> (Steve Harrison)
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 1994 13:02:01 +30000
Subject: MQH DID HE KNOW OR NO
Message-ID: <Pine.SGI.3.90.940921115256.17731D-100000 at eagle>
On Tue, 20 Sep 1994 bill.lumnitzer at paonline.com wrote:
> Zw> First he did not admit to knowing about the scam, now he cleared it
> Zw> before
> Zw> hand? Which is it?
> Zw> de andy - ka1gd
>
> 73 Bill, N6CQ/3
>
My original posting clearly stated that Dick, K3MQH, told me that as soon
as he found out about the incident, he called the ARRL (actually, he said the
Contest Desk). This obviously means that he called them on Monday or
Tuesday after the contest since I was told that on Tuesday night.
A last word on the responsibilities of "control operators"; or, in this
and many other cases, the guy whose call is being signed by others during
a contest.
Many times, a large station owner has a guy/gal or a bunch of guys/gals
over to operate some contest using his/her call. Frequently, the owner does
not stick around to monitor everything. The latest instance of this as
related on the CQ-CONTEST Reflector was of Alan Brubaker, K6XO, leaving
"the keys" of his own station with another guy who them made a good run in
one of the Sprints. Meanwhile, Alan hopped in his mobile and took off for a
hilltop, leaving his buddy all alone to operate the contest any way he chose.
Was Alan responsible for the conduct of his operator? Yes, according to
both the FCC and the contest sponsors, the owner of the station is held
responsible. Was Alan required, or even obligated to remain right there
by the operator's side throughout the contest? According to the FCC, no.
What would the FCC do if the operator did something illegal such as being
out of the band? My guess is it would probably chasten both Alan AND the
operator; Alan for not being there to prevent the occurance, the operator
for actually performing the act. Sort of like accessory-to-the-fact,
perhaps; although generally, the courts have not held somebody who unwittingly
created a situation that allowed somebody else to do something illegal
strictly at fault nor severely penalized them. Of course, if Alan had an
idea that the guy intended to operate out-of-band, then he would be
charged and penalized accordingly.
As to the ARRL's position, when the act is clearly an intentional broach of
the contest rules, they have disqualified the entire operation (and I am
aware of several disqualifications that were made when the broach was
obviously NOT intentional but inadvertent, although easily preventable). In
this case, there was clearly no broach of the contest rules, and an informal
ruling to that effect has already been made by the ARRL; moreover, other
stations took advantage of the event to increase their own scores, whether
knowing just how that was happening at the time or not. When one operator of
a number has performed something clearly against the rules,
disqualification has sometimes resulted. But when one operator has merely
done something that might be construed as against the spirit of the contest,
the ARRL (and usually, CQ) has not penalized the entire operation any further
than, perhaps, an appropriate reduction in the final score. This event is
unusual in that the purported offense benefited a number of other scores in
addition to Dick's group. Further, without actual side-by-side comparison of
the logs of potential beneficiaries, it will be nearly impossible to judge
by how much any one score was affected.
The courts (and other disciplinary bodies), have, in situations of this kind
where there was no clear victim, generally not severely punished the
perpetrator, particularly when the offense was not clearly proven to be
intentional. The ARRL and CQ's contest staff have, in the past,
merely reduced scores to the extent that the score may have been benefited by
an offense that could not be clearly proven to be fully intentional and
against the contest rules.
The real problem here is not that the event took place, but first,
whether such events are, indeed, against the spirit of the contest; and
secondly, if so, how can it AND OTHER SIMILAR EVENTS be prevented in the
future. Despite common opinion that there is no way to actually prevent
these things, there are several ways, at least one of which is already known
to be extremely unpopular to most high-rate V/UHF contesters, by which this
kind of "inadvertantly-manufactured" QSO can be prevented. I'm not going
to mention those methods that I believe will stop this kind of QSO simply
because every time I do, I catch holy flack and flames from a few
loudmouths on this Reflector.
I feel very disappointed that nobody else has yet appeared to
impartially analyze the reported QSO and multiplier scores from both this
and past contests in an effort to understand what the end effect of any
"manufactured" QSOs may have had. Had this been an HF contest, we would
most likely already have heard from such eminent log and score analyzers
as N6AA, N6TR, K2MM, etc..The controversy would have been reduced to mere
hissing and snapping from two contestants who, for some reason (even
though they were not competing in any way against the K3MQH group), perceive
that they have suffered grievous wounds; both shall remain call- and
nameless here. Interestingly however, the assignee of the callsign under
which they both operated has yet to be heard from.
73, Steve KO0U/4 <sharrison at sysplan.com>
>From fhmoore at nemed.b11.ingr.com (frank moore) Wed Sep 21 19:11:20 1994
From: fhmoore at nemed.b11.ingr.com (frank moore) (frank moore)
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 94 13:11:20 CDT
Subject: Changing the Rules
Message-ID: <199409211811.AA15714 at nemed.b11.ingr.com>
There is no way that I can justify outlawing the use to 2 radios. I think that
it would be a kick to do it someday when it becomes important enough to me.
I don't even care if it didn't help my score much. Just juggling that many
tasks must be a rush. In particular, I don't advocate changing the rules
to any contest. If I don't like the rules, I don't play (my quirky style).
I would like to know who uses to radios so that I can see how well they do
(same as who uses low power in the sprints) and so that I can discount any
comparision with my meager contesting attempts.
The adverse reaction to this is interesting to me. I can't see what the big
deal is except for the people that do the writeup. It seems that since they
are doing the work, they get to choose.
Frank, KE4GY "It's easier to create a pileup on the
internet than from my radio at home :)"
fhmoore at ingr.com
>From rmarosko at bcm.tmc.edu (Ron Marosko) Wed Sep 21 19:18:32 1994
From: rmarosko at bcm.tmc.edu (Ron Marosko) (Ron Marosko)
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 1994 13:18:32 -0500
Subject: Reported VHF score
Message-ID: <199409211818.NAA00208 at bcm.tmc.edu>
Another VHF score reported to me via PacketCluster...
K9MK/5, EM12, Single Op
Band QSOs Mults
50m 237 105
2m 59 25
222 7 5
432 19 8
902 2 2
1296 3 2
Total 327 147 53361 points
73,
Ron KB5NFN/AA
---
#include <std.disclaimer.h>
As usual, the views expressed here do not represent the views of
the BCM management, staff, or any living person.
+-------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| Ron Marosko | The Computing Resource Center |
| rmarosko at bcm.tmc.edu | Baylor College of Medicine |
| kb5nfn at amsat.org | |
+-------------------------------+--------------------------------+
>From Bill Standerfer <bills at hpislwes.lvld.hp.com> Wed Sep 21 19:54:11 1994
From: Bill Standerfer <bills at hpislwes.lvld.hp.com> (Bill Standerfer)
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 94 12:54:11 MDT
Subject: Radio Cops
Message-ID: <9409211854.AA14991 at hpislwes.lvld.hp.com>
Dan, KI6X wrote:
> Remember that CT in the single op unassisted mode does not allow
> received packets but allows you to send them. I don't know why a big
> single op would put out packets for others. Maybe to get the the
>[...]
As a cap pistol instead of a big gun, I must be missing something here, too.
Why, in a competitive situation, would I want to give any advantage to my
competition by spotting a juicy multiplier? Rule issues aside, it seems a
rather curious notion to want to give any hints whatever to the others in the
contest. Let the other guys find them by themselves. Now, if someone in the
contest wants to help me out by spotting someone I need, then, rules
permitting, I may take the help.
Of course, there are folks who are just dabbling in the contest and don't
think about the competitive impact of putting something on the network.
However, it seems to me that packet clusters should, ideally, fall deathly
silent at 0001Z on Friday night and not see any use until after the contest
ends.
Bill
Bill Standerfer * Hewlett-Packard Company
CFI-A, IA, ME * VXI Systems Division
bills at lvld.hp.com * Loveland, CO 80539
Baron N222AB - KF0DJ - Pikes Peak 253 * 303-679-2378
>From fabio.schettino at galactica.it (Fabio Schettino) Wed Sep 21 20:30:00 1994
From: fabio.schettino at galactica.it (Fabio Schettino) (Fabio Schettino)
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 94 20:30:00 +0100
Subject: WRTC 95 Comments from Europe
Message-ID: <bb.58246.1.0C867A79 at galactica.it>
Hello guys,
I will want comment about WRTC 95, I and a friend of mine are very interested
on it.
I support the K3EST proposal about the Country selection, and the :
10 teams from USA = 1/call area
10 teams from JA = 1/call area
15+ teams from Europe
2 teams from Oceania
4 teams from UA9/0/4X etc
4 teams from South America
2 teams from Africa
seem to be a reasonable solution, may be a couple of Carribean teams could
complete the selection.
The TEAM must had experience on a multi/single effort together I think
that a good European SO could not make a good effort in MS without loosing
something due the fact that the guy in the team work in different mode.
In Europe is more difficult to move from one Country and another to be one
of some MS OT3T, IQ4A, IR4T, LZ9A, is very frequently that a group could be
organised in the same Country so I think that WRTC Committee must accept
request from a TEAM of the same Country and try to don't separate the
operators.
I disagree that the Committee devote to National Organisation the selection
of the Operators. I know a very well operators that are not member of the
Organisation or have not a good feel with the Headquarter of the Organisation.
Regarding the selection criteria, you cannot compare a SO guy results with a
MS guy that have the same capabilities, but is involved only in a MS activity,
but a comperes of the results of the SO and the MS in the same contest of the
same year could help to extract a mathematical factor to assign at the MS
operator. This factor should be applied in function of the number of operator
in the MS and related to all another operators in MS effort in the geographical
area.
This is only an idea, probably difficult to analyse, but I think not impossible.
I think to have lost some mail, because I have not found in any message
what is mean for "result published in 90-94", do is it mean the result of
the primarily WW Contest or they include also the National Contest ?
I think that you have not considered that in Europe ,JA, South America, there
is at least one National Contest. I think that this could be a good
information to evidence the TOP leader among the same Country Operator.
If the final selection is made in March, due the fact that the deadline
has been moved to 28 Feb 95, how you can consider the results of the 1994
Contest ?
Are all the contest WW included ? CQ WPX, CQ WWDX, ARRL 10, ARRL, IARU, WAE
Sorry for my bad English.....
73 de Fabio I4UFH.
fabio.schettino at galactica.it
I4UFH one of IR4T Contest Team.
More information about the CQ-Contest
mailing list