[CQ-Contest] Why not BAN packet entirely in contests?

[Barry Kutner]

On 22 Jul 01, Marty Tippin wrote:

> 
> If this has been argued before, I've not seen it. Apologies in advance if 
> this stirs up a hornet's nest...
> 
> 
> What good reason is there to allow the use of packet cluster during contests?
> 
> 
While we're at it, let's ban computers too. Paper logs only with 
dupe sheets. Straight keys and bugs only, too. No memory keyers.

> I would propose banning the use of packet cluster in any way (either 
> receiving or sending spots) during contests. Especially if *spotting* 
> stations on the cluster was banned, it would basically eliminate the use of 
> packet cluster during contests (no point in connecting if nobody is 
> spotting...)
> 
> Please note -- I'm not at all opposed to the use of packet cluster outside 
> of contests - it's a great way to find out where the DX is and/or who's on 
> the band, where propagation might be best, etc. etc. - I keep DXMon running 
> 24 hours on my shack PC and watch all the spots that come in from DXSummit.
> 
> 
> I can esily come up with a lot more reasons *not* to allow it than to allow it:
> 
> * Ops might actually have to turn the dial, listen, and use a bit of skill 
> to find stations to work (a novel idea, I know..) This is not a "level the 
> playing field" argument and I don't want to start that. But just think how 
> much more true skill is required to tune the band, listening for weak ones 
> buried in the noise than it is to simply click on an incoming spot and have 
> the rig QSY for you automatically.
> 

I can assure you, competitive ops turn the dial.

> * I've worked multi-single efforts where I believe the packet cluster 
> actually worked to the *detriment* of our score -- ops on the mult station 
> were so consumed with working every new spot that came in that they never 
> used a disciplined approach of scanning the band from one end to the other 
> to find new stations (including the many that weren't being spotted). I'm 
> certain a lot of mults were missed because of randomly hopping around the band.
> 

Only because they are poor ops. Good ops know how and when to 
use packet.

> * The opportunity to cheat is obvious, and apparently a lot more widespread 
> than I would have guessed. Eliminate the source of this opportunity and you 
> eliminate at least some of the cheating. We'll deal with the 3KW stations 
> and the low-power stations running 1KW or more later.
> 

No, deal with them now. A cheater is a cheater. If not packet, 
something else.

> * For those connected to internet packet clusters (as I believe the vast 
> majority of users now are), a great percentage of the spots that come in 
> are worthless and only waste your time when you check. I don't care if JA 
> is working ZS on 10m, because I probably can't hear them. But the spots 
> (after importing into the logging program) generally don't show the source, 
> only the station that was spotted.
> 

So?

> * For DX stations, the packet cluster is often more harmful than helpful to 
> the run rate. I've seen many big DX stations comment that it's obvious when 
> they were spotted as the pileup gets suddenly huge. Imagine what happens to 
> the semi-casual DX with an "average" station who gets spotted and is 
> suddenly overwhelmed with the pileup. I'll bet many of them just pull the 
> plug and go do something else.
> 
> 

Good ops know how to handle a pileup. If you feel overwhelmed, 
either learn how to operate, or feel free to pull the plug.

> The only argument I can think of in favor of allowing packet is that it 
> *might* attract more casual and/or inexperienced ops who aren't serious 
> about the contest and only want to work a few new ones here and there. But 
> keep in mind that these ops in general have less capable stations and are 
> only going to be able to work the loudest DX they hear, which is obviously 
> easy to find by spinning the dial.
> 
>

You're finally making sense. If only the big guns were on, the 
contest would be very boring. You would want to operate a contest 
that all weekend was like SS SUnday afternoon, would you?
 
> If anyone can come up with more valid reasons for allowing packet cluster 
> in a contest, I'm all ears!
> 

Time and technology march on. Deal with it!

73 Barry W2UP


> 73,
> 
> -Marty NW0L
>   martyt at pobox.com
> 
> 
> --
> CQ-Contest on WWW: http://lists.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
> Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST at contesting.com
> 


--
Barry Kutner, W2UP              Internet: w2up at mindspring.com
Newtown, PA                     Frankford Radio Club
         


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