[CQ-Contest] Random acts of kindness

[Paul J. Piercey]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com 
> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Tree
> Sent: December 3, 2006 15:25
> To: cq-contest at contesting.com
> Subject: [CQ-Contest] Random acts of kindness
> 
> 
> W5OVen writes:
> 
> > Regardless, someone randomly telling you some mult is up 5 is not 
> > equivalent to using packet (or the various internet age 
> descriptions 
> > of the same thing) or an FM voice spotting network, or a 
> self-styled "fan club".
> > 
> > Now, we have some "new kids on the block" who are equating "random 
> > acts of kindness" with using packet or an FM voice spotting network.
> 
> I must disagree with the senior senator from Texas on this point.
> 
> I am not sure the line is that black and white.  I wish it were.  
> 
> Comparing the random acts of kindness of 30 years ago to the 
> ones of today, I see that the ubuiquitous use of packet by a 
> significant percentage of people (let's say 20 percent) 
> during the contest makes the type of information that we were 
> concerned about communicating on the old FM voice spotting 
> net really easy to access - even without having packet in 
> your own station.  
> 

It doesn't matter. Unless it is proven that you coordinated with one or more
others to get this info or you are DIRECTLY connected to or using a spotting
network, you are unassisted according to the rules I've read. This problem
has arisen as a result of individuals interjecting their own beliefs into
the mix, for whatever reasons. The more I think about this, the more I can
see that the rules are probably actually quite concise when it comes to
assisted operations. The spirit and intention was to provide operators a
classification to avail of this new technology while trying to make it as
fair as possible to those who could not or would not use it. My concern with
the contest rules is that as new technology and techniques are developed,
the contest sponsors need to be more pro-active in addressing them.

> While this probaly isn't a problem during CW contests - where 
> additional information exchange has too high of a price - it 
> would be pretty easy to make it known that you need VO1 (or 
> some other mult) during the course of running a bunch of 
> stations on your CQ frequency.  
> 
> In the old days - perhaps someone who just tuned across the 
> VO1 down the band might mention it and you got lucky.  
> 
> But now a days - all someone has to do it look at their 
> packet screen and give you the information.  I think this 
> adds up to you never really needing packet in your station to 
> have the benefit of it..  just find some helpful person in 
> your pileup to give the information to you.
> 

So, what's the difference with that in respect to the practices of years ago
before the cluster? Because it was done before the advent of spotting
networks, I think the contest sponsors would have taken it into
consideration had it been believed to have been a major problem in the first
place. With no direct referrence to on-air commentary either being
encouraged or discouraged, I don't think the sponsors care one way or the
other. The only way to know is if they modify their rules to address it.
Like I said before, do you get that many voluntary comments during a contest
to make it a REAL problem?

> Most of these "helpful" people are not on this list - so this 
> long debate isn't going to affect them.  What I am hoping 
> will come out of this is an understanding that if getting a 
> clean sweep is going to mean anything for the unassisted 
> operator - that the exchange of this type of information, and 
> certainly acting on it - should be discouraged.
> 

If it wasn't discouraged 30 years ago, why should it be discouraged now? It
doesn't matter that the info is more readily available. If the number of
contesters has increased from years ago, then the number of random comments
should increase proportionately even without spotting networks. Frankly, I
feel the practice is representative of a comraderie amongst contesters that
seems to be missing or running short. These comments are mostly made with no
reward given or expected; totally selfless. To me, this is an infinitely
more desired behaviour than that you would find in virtually any pileup in
any contest.

> Again, this isn't such a big deal for 90 percent of the 
> operators in the contest - I am more concerned about the 
> people at the top of the listings getting away with this 
> behavior.  It just isn't fair.
> 

Fairness is a whole other thread.

73 -- Paul VO1HE