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

[Marty Tippin]

At 12:40 PM 7/22/2001 , you wrote:


>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.

That's a ridiculous argument which doesn't do anything but obscure the 
issue at hand. Nobody mentioned anything about computers or CW keys. Focus!

Computer logging, memory keyers and the like have had an absolutely 
positive impact on contesting, whereas I fail to see anything truly useful 
about packet cluster use in a contest.

Actually, my argument should have been made against using any form of 
"outside assistance," with packet cluster being the main form of outside 
assistance in use today.



> > * 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.


And competitive ops probably don't use packet (certainly not those who are 
competitive single-ops). But there are a lot more non-competitive ops in a 
contest than competitive ones. Where's your argument in favor of allowing 
packet cluster in a contest?



> > * 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.

Maybe so. But where's the argument here in favor of packet cluster?




> > * 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.

Agreed.


> > * 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?

So? Where's the argument in favor or packet cluster use during a contest?



> > * 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 DX has absolutely no control over how or when they get spotted on the 
cluster. So where's the argument in favor of packet?


> > 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?

Well just for fun, I looked at my rates from last SS phone. I had better 
rates all day on Sunday than I did on Saturday evening. So, yes, I would 
like for the entire weekend to be like SS Sunday afternoon.


> > 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!

Ok, but where's the argument in favor of packet cluster?

Not all technological advances in ham radio are necessarily useful or 
applicable to contesting. In particular, I see packet cluster as a 
technological advance which has it's place but not necessarily in a contest.


-Marty NW0L
  martyt at pobox.com


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