[CQ-Contest] Proposed new packet/assisted rule

[Kelly Taylor]

So, once again, we're going to make people pay the price for the actions of
others over which they have no control. Isn't that what a little thing
called the Boston Tea Party was about?

The problem with this idea is that it means everybody would be 'assisted.'
Everybody gets spotted at one time or another.

The economics of maintaining a packet version of the 'do not call list' are
staggering. Who would pay? And, once again, please have someone explain to
me why the packet sysops would give a damn. You need them to buy into this
idea or the whole thing is shot. And given how expensive, how
adminstratively difficult it would be, I just don't see them doing that.

And even if it did happen, it wouldn't be flawless. Some folk on the do not
spot list would be spotted.

John, does this mean you now question your accomplishment of the current SS
phone QRP record? Particularly since you admitted that the key to your
success was being spotted.

For a country that was founded on vehement (and justified, BTW) opposition
to 'taxation without representation,' I find it astonishing to see people so
willing to throw away the principles of justice that millions have died
fighting to preserve. Particularly on an issue that has yet to be
demonstrated actually is an issue.

73, kelly
ve4xt

----- Original Message -----
From: "John WA2GO" <xnewyorka at hotmail.com>
To: <cq-contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2004 10:52 PM
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Proposed new packet/assisted rule


> I was originally going to reply to the below with the observation that
every
> time you call CQ you are spotting yourself - you are saying "Here I am,
> please call me, I am on this frequency and I am looking to make contacts".
> The thing is, you are only spotted in one place - the frequency you are
on.
> In order for anyone to pick up your "spot", they need to tune across your
> frequency. (Yes, they would have know how to use their tuning knob...)
But
> if your "spot" (i.e., your CQ) got magically MULTIPLIED so that everyone
in
> the entire world could hear it, no matter what frequency their radio was
> tuned to (or even if their radio was off at the moment), just imagine how
> much that could help you!  It would be almost like CQ'ing and listening on
> every available frequency all at once, and then some!  Powerful!   But
wait
> - that is exactly what getting spotted on packet is!
>
> Since getting spotted is equivalent to artifically expanding the scope of
> your CQ through the assistance of other operators (such as the op who
> spotted you, and the ops who run the packet network), guess what, you are
> ASSISTED!    Yes, that's right - if you get spotted, you are being
assisted.
>   If you get spotted and somebody else doesn't, that puts you at an unfair
> advantage. Doesn't matter WHY you got spotted and they didn't (such as you
> have friends and they don't, you have a sexy accent and they don't, or
> whatever), you still have obtained an advantage.
>
> While I was on that line of thinking, I came up with a solution to address
> this issue in a very fair way...
>
> Here is my proposed rule to address this issue and create a level playing
> field once and for all:
>
> Stations who get spotted one or more times during the contest shall enter
> the Assisted category.
> Stations who wish to submit an entry in the Unassisted category shall "Opt
> Out" of being spotted.
> The packet sysops shall maintain an "Opt Out" database of stations who
wish
> to NOT be spotted. In order to enter as Unassisted, a station must exist
in
> the Opt Out database continuously for the entire contest period. (Opting
out
> can be done by sending a command to the packet system, or perhaps sending
an
> email to a robot connected to the master Opt Out database, which would
> presumably be replicated to all packet nodes as needed.)
> If someone attempts to spot a station who has opted out of being spotted,
> the packet system shall ignore/drop the spot and not post it. (Optionally,
> it shall notify the spotter that the station has opted out - not sure if
> that is feasible or not.)
>
> As I said in an earlier post, I don't know anything at all about the
> technology behind packet (and I don't really care to learn, so there's no
> need to waste your time educating me on it), but I have to believe that
> something like what I have described would be technically possible. If it
> could be done, it would resolve all of the cheerleader issues and make
> treatment of all stations as fair as possible, wouldn't it??
>
> Stations who are true Unassisted single ops and want to be recognized as
> such will still be able to do so, and they will make their contacts "the
old
> fashioned way - they will earn them" by calling CQ and having people find
> them. There can be no claims of cheerleaders for them, because they never
> got spotted. Stations who want to engage the assistance of the "mouths and
> ears" of other stations can use spots and allow themselves to get spotted,
> and will enter in the Assisted category, plain and simple. Problem solved?
>
>
> John
> WA2GO
>
>
>
> >From: "Blake Meinecke" <n4gi at tampabay.rr.com>
> >To: <cq-contest at contesting.com>
> >Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Packet statistics
> >Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 21:19:59 -0500
> >
> >
> >----- Original Message ----- From: "Igor Sokolov" <ua9cdc at r66.ru>
> >>We need to change rules so that it is not beneficial to use packet
> >>anymore.
> >
> >Legalization of self-spotting for all categories.....  ?
> >
> >73,
> >Blake N4GI
> >_______________________________________________
> >CQ-Contest mailing list
> >CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> >http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest