[CQ-Contest] [NCCC] SS Packet DANGER, DANGER, Will Robinson!!!

Thu Nov 16 10:54:06 EST 2006

On Thu, Nov 16, 2006 at 07:34:53AM +0000, Alan Eshleman wrote:
> Well Ken (and sorry I can't place you without a call sign) I trust you've 
> been reading the other responses to my question.  And, frankly, I can do 
> without the snarky tone of your response.  

Sure.  I just get tired of seeing people trying to validate cheating on
this reflector.  It's one thing to ask about whether a practice would
be considered cheating, it's another to come along with the "everyone 
else is doing it..." excuse.

>                                            There are many elements to the 
> spirit of competition, and communicating with others during a contest ON 
> THE AIR is apparently not a violation of anything judging by the responses 
> I've seen.  Having others find contacts for us is exactly what is being 
> accomplished when spotters flood the packet window with calls.   Maybe I'll 
> see you in the contest OM.

What you describe is actively asking other contesters not at your station to 
help you work the QSOs you need.  It is quite different from passively using
cluster spots (of which I am not a fan, either).

> 73,
> 
> Alan/K6SRZ
> 
> At 18:54 11/15/2006 -0800, Kenneth E. Harker wrote:
> >On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 08:06:56PM +0000, Alan Eshleman wrote:
> > > Wow.  So if I'm working phone and I say (over the air) to no one in
> > > particular "if you work someone from NNY, send 'em on over here" that puts
> > > me in the multi category?  If that's true (1) I am guilty of doing this in
> > > the past and (2) so are hundreds of others similarly guilty.
> >
> >So, why would you think that it is acceptable for other people, not even
> >at your station, to go out and find your contacts for you?  How is that
> >even remotely in the spirit of the competition?
> >
> >
> > > 73,
> > >
> > > Alan/K6SRZ
> > >
> > > At 10:25 11/15/2006 -0800, K6VVA wrote:
> > > >SS Packet DANGER, DANGER, Will Robinson!!!
> > > >
> > > >With the SS Phone weekend rapidly approaching, I sincerely hope this helps
> > > >someone else to NOT make the same mistake (out of ignorance and
> > > >misunderstanding) that I did in the 2006 SS CW event.
> > > >
> > > >Special TNX to wise sage Mr. Wardster, N0AX, for his advice as to a
> > > >solution in this matter vs. simply requesting withdrawal of my humble,
> > > >non-competitive log submission.
> > > >
> > > >73 & Good Luck in the Contest, Om's...
> > > >
> > > >Rick, K6VVA
> > > >
> > > >P.S. I am strongly considering the NON-use of Packet during my limited QRV
> > > >in the SS Phone event, so any pre-fill data with a "U" category *may* be
> > > >incorrect ;-(
> > > >
> > > >RE:
> > > >===
> > > >
> > > > >Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 10:10:20 -0800
> > > > >To: kc1j at arrl.org
> > > > >From: K6VVA <dx35 at hilding.com>
> > > > >Subject: RE: K6VVA ARRL 2006 SS CW Log Submission
> > > > >
> > > > >Hello, Tom:
> > > > >
> > > > >In an abundance of caution, and due to my ignorance and 
> > misinterpretation
> > > > >of packet rules for the "U" category, based upon several Reflector
> > > > >discussions, it appears I need to change my K6VVA 2006 SS CW Log
> > > > >Submission from the category of "U" to "M".
> > > > >
> > > > >In my operational excitement of only needing the "NL" section for a 
> > Clean
> > > > >Sweep before having to QRT Sunday Morning, I recall making a post (like
> > > > >others I'd seen) which I didn't even remotely consider to be
> > > > >"solicitation" at the time.
> > > > >
> > > > >Will this email suffice, or do I need to totally resubmit a log with the
> > > > >above correction in it?
> > > > >
> > > > >IMHO, there is a fuzzy thin line between "U" and "M", and from one 
> > vantage
> > > > >point, I now believe there is really no difference.  In fact, I 
> > think "U"
> > > > >should be changed to "MU" (Multi-Unlimited), because the use of 
> > packet is
> > > > >really like having the benefit of thousands and thousands of "Assistant"
> > > > >operators.
> > > > >
> > > > >In any case, I believe a more detailed "WARNING" and description of what
> > > > >constitutes "Solicitation" needs to be incorporated into a re-write 
> > of the
> > > > >SS rule.
> > > > >
> > > > >Please advise if my requested change can be made at the ARRL, or if 
> > I need
> > > > >to resubmit.
> > > > >
> > > > >Tnx & 73...
> > > > >
> > > > >Rick, K6VVA
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >_______________________________________________
> > > >NCCC mailing list  (http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/nccc)
> > > >Post to: nccc at contesting.com
> > > >Manage your subscription at: 
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/options/nccc
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > CQ-Contest mailing list
> > > CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> > > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> >
> >--
> >Kenneth E. Harker WM5R
> >kenharker at kenharker.com
> >http://www.kenharker.com/
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

-- 
Kenneth E. Harker WM5R
kenharker at kenharker.com
http://www.kenharker.com/