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

[Barry Kutner]

On 22 Jul 01, Marty Tippin wrote:

> 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.
> 
> 

It's not any more ridiculous than yours

> 
> > > * 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?
> 
> 

OK, I guess K3WW and KI1G are not competitive. Tnx for 
correcting that misconception on my part.

Argument in favor of packet:
It generates MORE CONTEST ACTIVITY for everyone, by 
stimulating more interest from the casual ops.

> 
> > > * 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?
> 

You seem to have deveoped a stutter. See above.

> 
> 
> > > * 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?
> 

There's that stutter again. See above.

> 
> > > * 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?
> 

Nobody has control over when they get spotted. Personally I love it 
when a EU spots me. My rate climbs almost instantly. I like to see 
a "show of hands:" Who would prefer not to be spotted on packet?

Stutter - see above.

> > > 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.
> 
> 

I doubt that is true for any of the top ten scores.

> > > 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?
> 

See above.
73,
Barry

> 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
> 

--
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