[CQ-Contest] Log checking questions

Fri Dec 16 18:27:38 EST 2005

First and least important the semantics are DXPacket Cluster sometimes shortened to DX Cluster. No where is the word telnet used except for the software call DXTelnet.

Now for the important stuff: I have been licensed as long as you have been alive. I point that out to show I've participated in many many contests before packet clusters were even invented. Believe it or not contest participation was just fine prior to packet clusters. Hams have a very bad habit of repeating what they hear and claim it to be a fact. You said: """". There is no proof of that, it is a statement that has been made in defense for using the clusters during contests. I think the first time I heard it was on this mailing list 6 or 7 years ago. It was a statement, not based in fact, then just as it is today. It has been used/misused so often everyone thinks it is some kind of fact. Contest scores are up and new records set not because of packet clusters but because equipment and operators are better now. 
Why are you, and others, so against a one (1) weekend moratorium experiment? Is it just possible I could be right and contesting would survive just fine, once again, without the cluster network.

MAL               N7MAL
Don't worry about the world coming to an end today.
It's already tomorrow in Australia
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Barry 
  To: cq-contest at contesting.com 
  Sent: Friday, December 16, 2005 12:41
  Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Log checking questions

  First, an issue of semantics.  I don't use packet.  I use telnet. Not 
  many use packet any more...

  Second, to the issue at hand. 
  Mark - if all single ops were permitted to use DX spotting assistance, 
  how would that hurt you?  You call it a crutch.  That implies an 
  impairment.  Perhaps you're correct, as year after year, most top ten SO 
  scores are higher than SOA scores.  If the SOs score higher, how would 
  "packet" use harm your effort?

  There's no way the DX spotting network could or should be disabled for a 
  contest.  It stimulates activity by the casual op, looking to make a few 
  QSOs or pick up a few new band-countries, etc.  It's the casual ops that 
  make the big contests what they are.  Do you really want CQWW to become 
  a contest with participation similar to a Sprint - with only a core 
  group of regulars?
  Barry W2UP

  Mark Beckwith wrote:

  >I appreciate your post, MAL, thanks.
  >My post was pretty much to say that if the sponsors allow unrestricted packet use at all times by all competitors as you propose, I would not be interested in playing that game.  That's all.  I'm pretty sure I'm not alone.
  >That said, I disagree that contests' sponsors are choosing to do nothing because of a revenue stream, rather that there are only 24 hours in a day and quite correctly they have chosen to fry bigger fish and avoid the headache.  You may recall in the 90s when some far-seeing individuals like yourself proposed that everyone turn in their logs electronically you were met with "it'll never happen."  Such is the way of ham radio contests.  10 years from now, when it's trivial to bust packet cheaters in a way everyone agrees is a no-brainer, this conversation will finally be over and people entering unassisted won't be cheating, and people using packet will be understanding the are on crutches and that some of them can actually run if they will only give it a try.
  >MAL, you're just ahead of your time, that's all.  Take it from ME, it's frustrating to know all the answers :)
  >Mark, N5OT
  >  ----- Original Message ----- 
  >  From: N7MAL 
  >  To: Mark Beckwith ; cq-contest at contesting.com 
  >  Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 11:24 PM
  >  Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Log checking questions
  >  Mark right now every contest you enter you are entering against guys using 'crutches', many many guys. Over the years the contest sponsors have had a great many opportunities to 'bust' the cheaters but they won't/don't. N6TJ and I and others have brought this up several times over the past few years and nothing, absolutely nothing, gets done about it. I have cited obvious cheaters from my own logs, during SS, and nothing has changed. As long as the contest sponsors first priority is revenue, from their magazines, cheating will continue. You will get no help from the contest sponsors. Oh they say they aggressively pursue cheating but talk is cheap, actions speak louder than words.
  >  Several months ago, when this subject came up, I suggested a one(1) contest weekend moratorium on the packet so the scores could be analyzed to determine the impact on packet cheating. You would have thought I had shot someone's dog. I was attacked viciously both publicly and privately. The packet cheaters couldn't go one(1) contest without packet and apparently neither can one packet sysop, K1TTT who publicly attacked me.
  >  Anyone who knows me knows how strongly I feel against using packet during contests. I wish there were an alternative but after fighting it for so many years there seems to be no solution other than to make it a 'free-for-all'. I will take comfort in knowing every contact in my log I found on my own without any outside help.
  >  I guess some of us are part of a dying breed, we actually know what a contest means and how to operate in a contest without cheating.
  >  MAL               N7MAL
  >  http://www.ctaz.com/~suzyq/N7mal.htm
  >  http://geocities.com/n7mal/
  >  Don't worry about the world coming to an end today.
  >  It's already tomorrow in Australia
  >CQ-Contest mailing list
  >CQ-Contest at contesting.com


  Barry Kutner, W2UP             
  Newtown, PA                     

  CQ-Contest mailing list
  CQ-Contest at contesting.com

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list