[CQ-Contest] Packet Pileups -> Breaking Pileups

John Laney k4bai at worldnet.att.net
Mon Dec 4 16:08:20 EST 2000

Some ops can clearly demonstrate that they were not monitoring packet.  K5ZD's
very interesting write up lists a number of very active stations that he did not
work much or at all and they would have been new mults.  For example, he heard me
at 8P9Z only once and therefore I assume worked the 8P mult on only one band.

In the absence of a QSY from band to band with a station who is the only one to
work for a country or zone mult in a contest, a top scoring station who CQs a lot
is likely to miss the mult on a number of bands if he does not have packet.  It
is probably much easier for the S&P guy to work a close in mult country on all
bands.  However, you would think the second radio for the SO2R guys would make up
for a lot of that--obviously it doesn't.   If it is suspected that someone is
cheating by using packet spots and claiming single op unassisted, I suspect that
a careful analysis of the spots put out during the weekend and the QSOs made by
the stations spotted would build up a very strong circumstantial evidence case or
pretty much debunk the claim.  I think such suspicions should be investigated if
they are based upon obversations of a particular station and not just on a
statistical analysis that might be viewed as "sour grapes."  No one should ever
be disqualified or reclassified in the absence of strong evidence, but we should
not shrink from investigating suspicious cases.

The self-spotting violations appear to be more easily proven.  The danger here is
that someone possibly could do this in order to disqualify a rival.  Obviously
the station in question or someone at his request must intend to self-spot.  At
least one of the examples cited in an earlier message on this reflector seemed to
be pretty clear and repeated violations.

73 to all,

John, K4BAI/8P9HT.

K3BU at aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 12/4/2000 9:41:24 AM Eastern Standard Time, w5gn at mxg.com
> writes:
> > Packet spots
> >  let me do that in minimum time with minimum impact
> >  on other interests. And I get a check-out of my station
> >  in each of those pile-ups for spots so  I will do better
> >  when I do enter a contest seriously.
> Just like going into the ZOO with loaded gun will
> "let me do that with minimum impact on other interests..."
> and shoot the bunch of animals without having to find them on my own in the
> contest jungle.
> Sounds ridiculous? Maybe not to some.
> I wouldn't get satisfaction from that, actually I would be ashamed!
> Again, just like lists and nets and last two spoiled and devalued DXing and
> DXCC (reason I couldn't be bothered to chase DX anymore, means nothing to me)
> I see a day when packet will spoil contesting, and it looks like it is
> already doing it, see OL5Y's wondering.
> It would be interesting for log checkers to check the suspect logs of some of
> the multiplier leaders to see how long it took and how often, to work the new
> multiplier in S&P mode or second radio, after it was spotted on the packet in
> their area.
> If someone worked about 30 multipliers shortly after they were announced on
> the packet, then something is fishy in that log!!!
> Just like HG1S was defending their "brilliant" operating skills (of violating
> multiple signals), only to be nailed by their own and other's logs. What an
> egg in the face!!!
> I think it is time to wake up and give it a serious consideration.
> I would rather see us preserving the sanity of contesting and doing our own
> hunting rather than deteriorating to the ZOO thing. Just stop and think where
> are we heading. If one cannot obey and compete by the rules, then take up
> shooting animals in the ZOO, more fun and it makes big bang too.
> Yuri, K3BU
> I like driving my own (big old) car, eating my own food, having my own $ex,
> building my own station, chasing my own multipliers and Qs..... 'cause makes
> me feel good and achieving something, am I too old fashioned or too weird?
> --
> CQ-Contest on WWW:        http://lists.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
> Administrative requests:  cq-contest-REQUEST at contesting.com

CQ-Contest on WWW:        http://lists.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests:  cq-contest-REQUEST at contesting.com

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list