Sunday Sprint, SO vs. SOA
JSTEINMAN at aol.com
JSTEINMAN at aol.com
Sat Sep 24 11:27:05 EDT 1994
Sprint log submissions have been pretty steady
over the years, usually rising when driven by a
large number of team entries. Teams are the way
to get more guys on, not moving it to Sunday night.
But I could be wrong. So why not add a THIRD SPRINT
which is on SUNDAY NIGHT ? Leave September and
February alone.
And for this SO vs. SOA thing, I keep noticing the majority
of guys in favor of one category live in an area where the
population density is quite high.
Jeff KR0Y
jsteinman at aol.com
>From Cyndy Clemons <cclemons at topcat.bsc.mass.edu> Sat Sep 24 16:18:53 1994
From: Cyndy Clemons <cclemons at topcat.bsc.mass.edu> (Cyndy Clemons)
Date: Sat, 24 Sep 1994 11:18:53 EDT
Subject: cheating and "s/o unassisted"
Message-ID: <00984F26.8636A760.1 at topcat.bsc.mass.edu>
Jeff,
I understand the distinction you are making between running 3000 watts
(illegal according to U.S. Federal Law) and monitoring a packet cluster
(illegal according to a set of contest rules). Certainly there is a difference
in the heirarchical importance of these two sets of rules.
On the other hand, I see no way that you can make the distinction between
following one but not the other during a contest. At the end of the contest,
the operator signs his/her name attesting that all operation was done according
to federal regulations and rules of the particular contest. Any person who lies
when signing that statement should be considered a cheat (and a liar) no matter
which of the two sets of rules were broken. It is a matter of ethics and honor,
not one of the stiffness of the penalty, or whose laws/rules were broken.
I understand your desire to utilize all competitive weapons available to you,
but as long as the rules prohibit the use of a particular set, they should be
obeyed. (Please note that I am not making an accusation or inference that you
do otherwise!) I also respect your right to voice your opinion in order to get
this rule changed. My original message simply pointed out what I see to be a
flaw in your logic.
Until this point I have refrained from stating my opinion on the issue. I
do prefer that the definition of single op unassisted continue to ban the use
of packet for the following reasons:
1. There is a major difference between the use of DVK, cw memory
keyers, contest logging programs, 486 computers, etc. and packet
cluster use. In using the first set of technological devices, the
single operator is still doing all the work to operate them. The
use of a packet cluster does not fit this case since someone else
did some of the work - namely spotting the station. The fact that
the user has to decide if a particular spot is worth chasing does
not override this basic distinction.
2. There is also the cost of such technology. (I do have a packet
setup so this is not simply an exercise in grinding my own axe.)
For many people, buying a TNC, 2 meter yagi of some sort, and some
type of 2M transceiver is an expense they cannot justify in light of
their family responsibilities. This was the case with me for many
years, and I am sure it is the same with many others - especially
our overseas friends who are probably much less fortunate than we
on the average.
This reason in itself is probably not adequate to prevent such a
rule change, but imagine the ultimate effect on contesting if it
becomes competitive only for those who have a seemingly endless
supply of disposable income!
The fact that some limitations are put on any contest of skill is pretty much
a fact of life. The fact that people attempt to circumvent the rules is also
a fact of life. For example, baseball pitchers sometimes have used foreign
substances on the ball, batters have sometimes used corked bats, etc. Those
individuals probably could make the same case that these were simply another
weapon in their arsenal which would allow them to compete at higher levels.
The rules of any contest are set up in order to try and bring some semblance
of order and levelness to the playing field. Some people consider such rules
to be arbitrary, and in some respects they are correct. Nevertheless, I think
the sponsors of the major contests have gone out of their way to be as fair as
possible in setting their conditions.
Last, but not least, I find that the notion that we should legalize an
activity, simply because the perceived majority is already illegally doing it,
to be quite distasteful. Carried to its logical extreme, we would have nothing
but chaos and anarchy (in contests as well as life).
Jeff, I have enjoyed this exchange of messages. I also appreciate your
attitude in that you appear not to take any of it as a personal attack. I
look forward to a qso or two with you in the upcoming contest season (i.e.,
NR 1 A K1VUT 62 EMA)!
73, Dave Clemons K1VUT
>From Fred Cady ieefc at msu.oscs.montana.edu" <fred_c at ece.ee.montana.edu Sat Sep 24 15:31:52 1994
From: Fred Cady ieefc at msu.oscs.montana.edu" <fred_c at ece.ee.montana.edu (Fred Cady ieefc at msu.oscs.montana.edu)
Date: Sat, 24 Sep 1994 10:31:52 EDT
Subject: Sunday Sprints
Message-ID: <00984F1F.F4A42BC0.1 at ece.ee.montana.edu>
Enough already. I'd rather read SUBSCRIBE messages.
KE7X
>From Douglas S. Zwiebel" <0006489207 at mcimail.com Sat Sep 24 15:05:00 1994
From: Douglas S. Zwiebel" <0006489207 at mcimail.com (Douglas S. Zwiebel)
Date: Sat, 24 Sep 94 09:05 EST
Subject: SOA
Message-ID: <03940924140530/0006489207PK3EM at MCIMAIL.COM>
The SO assisted category (at least for CQWW) allows two things to
happen: a) those who choose to use packet (whether for fun, to build
club scores, to improve personal scores, or whatever) can have a
catagory to enter without FORCING them to cheat (by being made to
enter as single op) IF they didn't want to enter as multi-op. And
b) can compete in their own catagory with a chance for "glory" or
a listing in CQ, or "recognition", or some paper, as compared those
who are doing the same thing.
I can't understand why there is this "inter-category" competition,
mostly between SO all band vs SOA all band. They are two different
groups FOR THE ABOVE REASONS. All you have to do is to look at the
scores to see what is going on. No offense SOA types, but the top
non-assisted guys do better, score-wise, almost every time. In
CQWW SSB, ALL of the SO types (USA) did better than the 10th place
SOA (WORLD)!!!! Do you mean to imply that ALL of these guys are
cheating?
Just "thinking" about SOA would suggest (at least to me) that the scores
should be bigger than non-assisted. But this has been shown contest after
contest NOT to be true. So I guess that packet/spotting really doesn't
help that much (if at all)...some call it a hinderance!
Just how much improvement does packet add to YOUR score? If you feel
that SOA is a denigrated category, and you can't stand the heat, try
non-assisted. What is better IN YOUR MIND: Placing #3, 4, or 5 SOA,
or placing in the TOP TEN (even tenth) for non-assisted? If you can't
be PROUD of your score, because of what OTHERS say, maybe you're in it
for the wrong reason.
de Doug/KR2Q
sic transit glorius contestus
>From H. Ward Silver" <hwardsil at seattleu.edu Sat Sep 24 20:08:35 1994
From: H. Ward Silver" <hwardsil at seattleu.edu (H. Ward Silver)
Date: Sat, 24 Sep 1994 12:08:35 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Sunday sprint
Message-ID: <Pine.3.07.9409241230.B13478-9100000 at bach-32>
On Fri, 23 Sep 1994, Leonard Kay wrote:
> Hmmm... is is worth pushing up the start time for the NA Sprint (the 4 hour
> one) while we're at it, or will that make it less attractive for the
> Left Coast?
>
> Len KB2R
Leave the summer one at 0000Z, but push the winter one up to 2300 (same
local time due to daylight savings shift).
Ward N0AX
>From Ed Gilbert <eyg at hpnjlc.njd.hp.com> Sat Sep 24 22:02:28 1994
From: Ed Gilbert <eyg at hpnjlc.njd.hp.com> (Ed Gilbert)
Date: Sat, 24 Sep 1994 17:02:28 -0400
Subject: CQWW M/S rules
Message-ID: <9409242104.AA01209 at relay.hp.com>
Peter, G4BVH writes:
> Quote: 3. Multi-op, single-transmitter.
> Only one transmitter and one band permitted during any 10-minute period.
> Exception, one - and only one - other band may be used during any 10-minute
> period if - and only if - the station worked is a new multiplier.
> Unquote.
>
> Ok, so I'm running on 20 for a couple of hours and decide to go and run on 15.
> I change bands and begin my run.
> But...for a 10 minute period around the band change I have been running on 20
> (say for 5 minutes) and running on 15 (for another 5 minutes).
> So I have been on two bands but NOT just to work a new multiplier.
>
> Question - how can you change bands to run and keep to rule 3?
Peter points out that if you follow the rules exactly as they are
stated, you must wait 10 minutes after changing bands before making
qsos on the new band that are not new multipliers. Of course this is
not the intent of the rule, but that's what it says.
There's another problem with "3. Multi-Operator, Single Transmitter".
It's not a single transmitter class! Of course anyone who has been
contesting for a while knows that it is common practice to run 2 or 3
transmitters, at least 2 of them simultaneously, and this with the
tacit approval of the contest sponsors, but the rule says "Single
Transmitter".
How do we know how to interpret the restriction on band changes
without a clear statement in the rules? This question seems to come
up all the time. Most recently, Steve N2IC asked:
> Okay K3EST, KR2Q, K1AR and all you other CQWW log checkers out there, I want
> to know exactly what you are going to enforce for M/S for CQWW 1994:
>
> 1) You begin on the "new" band when you make your first QSO on the new band.
>
> OR
>
> 2) You have a flexible 10 minute window, that may begin just after your last
> QSO on the previous band, or it may begin when you make your first QSO on the
> new band.
>
> Please make it perfectly clear, so we are all playing by the same rules this
> year.
It would be nice if CQ would print an accurate, unambiguous statement
of the rules for this category that actually agreed with the way the
top scorers operate and the way the logs are currently checked.
Rather than just complain to K3EST and create more work for a guy who
already has a huge job to do, why don't we get come consensus on the
reflector as to what we'd like to see. I'll take a stab at it to get
things started:
3. Multi-Operator, Multi-Transmitter, Restricted.
Any number of operators and transmitters are allowed with the
restrictions noted below. One transmitter is designated the Run
transmitter, and all others are Multiplier transmitters.
- Whenever the Run transmitter works a station on a new band,
it cannot work a station on another band for a period of
10 minutes following the last QSO on the previous band.
- Multiplier transmitters can only work stations that are new
multipliers.
- Whenever any Multiplier transmitter works a station on a new
band, no Multiplier transmitter can work a station on
another band for a period of 10 minutes following the last
QSO on the previous band.
So what say you M/S ops?
-- Ed WA2SRQ
>From barry at w2up.wells.com (Barry Kutner) Sat Sep 24 21:49:06 1994
From: barry at w2up.wells.com (Barry Kutner) (Barry Kutner)
Date: Sat, 24 Sep 94 20:49:06 GMT
Subject: TIC Ring gear problem
Message-ID: <J906sc1w165w at w2up.wells.com>
The endless saga of the TIC ring continues. Got it up on the tower now
with TH7 mounted. Seems as I rotate it, it hits a point where the
teeth in the motor lose contact with teeth in the ring. Have tightened
motor up against ring gear as mauch as can, but still no good. Any
suggestions?
(It worked fine on ground)
--
Barry N. Kutner, W2UP Usenet/Internet: barry at w2up.wells.com
Newtown, PA Packet Radio: W2UP @ WB3JOE.#EPA.PA.USA.NA
Packet Cluster: W2UP >K2TW (FRC)
.......................................................................
More information about the CQ-Contest
mailing list