[CQ-Contest] Rules, debates, and other annual occurances

[Kelly Taylor]

I think the point about rules that can't be enforced isn't that we shouldn't
try to define acceptable practice, it's that if something is now a problem
among operators of already questionable integrity, a new rule isn't going to
make them good little boys.

Particularly rules on areas where there's no way to determine compliance.

IMHO, some of the suggestions so far have been of questionable value, to
wit:

Banning pre-contest operating. Puhleeze. This might play well to the big
guns who can carve out a run frequency in no time, but it places an even
greater disadvantage on the peanut whistle stations who lose the chance to
have a run frequency at the start. The suggestion that this has ever been
even implied in contest rules other than WRTC is false. It also does nothing
to endear the contesting community to casual entrants, who, once told they
have to forgo their early afternoon ragchew if they want to submit a log
will simply choose not to submit a log. Like that's a good thing for
contesting.

Turning off packet: As if.

Banning internet propagation reports: Hello? Does this also mean I can't
tune in to WWV? And if I can tune in to WWV, how is that different than
getting K-index and solar flux info from the net? It's not like WWV is an
'amateur-radio resource.'

It seems every time these threads come up, the more militant among us want
new rules that only cater to hard-core contesters. Well, here's a newsflash
guys, hard-core contesters comprise only a small portion of the activity we
hear on contest weekends. We need contests to appeal to more than just WRTC
alums. Otherwise, who the hell are we going to work? Just each other? You
think Sunday doldrums are a problem now, you ain't seen nothing compared to
the wasteland that would exist if the casual guys decided contests were just
too much like work.

This is a hobby. It is supposed to be fun. What's fun for a hard-core
contester might just be enough to make casual guys watch football instead.

The casual guys know they aren't competitive, so whether N2IC snags a run
frequency before the contest starts or whether station x claims unassisted
but uses packet anyway or whether K0HB gets propagation information from the
Net just is NOT an issue to them.

When you want to make contests appeal only to hard-core contesters, you must
remember: be careful what you wish for; you might just get it.

For all the hot air that was spent debating the cheerleading "problem"
nobody has yet demonstrated it even really is a problem. Who can say how
many unassisted packet cheaters there really are? You can't. You can only
speculate. And given that in almost every contest, those using packet do
WORSE than those without (look at SS), what's the big deal anyway?

If you want a suggestion to deal with packet cheating, here's one:
incorporate into the exchange an indication of category, like SS's
Precedent. Perhaps it could even replace, gaaaa!, RS(T), which is always
59(9) anyway.

It would serve as a deterrent to cheating and would offer some indication
the extent to which packet cheating is a problem. If a station must announce
to the world he's unassisted after chasing a packet spot, it's less likely
he will. It will also become immediately obvious when, say, D44TD realizes
he's been spotted and is flooded with calls from (un)assisted ops.

Since you could then correlate by comparing DX logs and spots, patterns of
cheating would be that much more apparent. Particularly if you always found
one (un)assisted station appearing in a different DX station's log so close
to a spot that it couldn't be a coincidence.

You may still have legal trouble enforcing the rule, but you could then
compile statistics on cheating and whether it helps. If it isn't very
prevalent and doesn't help when it does happen, then we can stop wringing
our hands.

Chasing packet spots is a very bad way to try to win a contest. All the
mults in the world don't mean diddly without QSOs to multiply.

73, kelly
ve4xt