[CQ-Contest] Cheating with Technology

Joe Subich, W4TV w4tv at subich.com
Wed Mar 12 23:50:57 EDT 2008


> On Remoting - If the transmitter, receiver and antennas are 
> within the designated station circle then why should anyone 
> care where the operator is located.   Managing communication 
> latencies is a technical challenge.  Does it advance the 
> radio art?   Maybe.   It might likely break down some of the 
> economic barriers to building large stations.   This would be 
> a good thing that advances contesting and dxing.   Does it 
> negatively impact the value of operator skill?   I think not.

Because the operator is as much a part of the station as are 
the transmitters, receivers, antennas and computers.  Part of 
building a station in an advantaged location is being there 
to operate it - not operating from somewhere else.  If one is 
going to have a station in KL7 during ARRL DX, one should be 
in KL7 during ARRL DX <G>.  If one is going to have a station 
in North Dakota during RTTY Roundup, one should be in North 
Dakota during RTTY Roundup. 



> -----Original Message-----
> From: cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com 
> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Guy Molinari
> Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 10:59 PM
> To: cq-contest at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Cheating with Technology
> 
> 
> I think there are a number of reasons why people get involved 
> in contesting.   There are those who like the technical 
> aspects of station building and see contests as a way to 
> "prove out" station designs, changes, etc.  They get their 
> kicks from the technology side of things.   Another group 
> likes the competition inherent in operating.   They see value 
> in building operating skills rather than technology for 
> technologies sake.
>  
> On SO2R - SO2R is about skill, not technology (this is a dead 
> horse that has been beaten many times).  SO2R advances the 
> radio art from a skill building perspective.   Managing 
> interstation interference is a related technical challenge.  
> This also advances the radio art.
>  
> On Skimmer - Skimmer has the potential of leveling the 
> playing field when used to generate spots.  I think the idea 
> of a network of skimmers for spotting and propagation studies 
> is a good one that advances the radio art.   Using skimmer in 
> the single op category demeans the skills that many ops have 
> worked hard to develop.   These skills are not considered a 
> chore to those who have worked hard to hone them.   Using 
> skimmer to copy calls and populate a band map does not 
> advance the radio art.
>  
> On Remoting - If the transmitter, receiver and antennas are 
> within the designated station circle then why should anyone 
> care where the operator is located.   Managing communication 
> latencies is a technical challenge.  Does it advance the 
> radio art?   Maybe.   It might likely break down some of the 
> economic barriers to building large stations.   This would be 
> a good thing that advances contesting and dxing.   Does it 
> negatively impact the value of operator skill?   I think not.
>  
> These are of course just my personal opinions.
>  
> I think the basic test of whether a technology should be 
> allowed is the ask this question.  "Does it advance the radio 
> art from the perspective of the major constituencies?".    I 
> realize that this is somewhat subjective question.   This 
> seems to me to be the stewardship of the contest sponsors.
>  
> Hopefully they will quickly sort this out and weigh in on skimmer.
>  
> I'm a newcomer that has just gotten into contesting in the 
> past few years.   I wasn't an active ham before computers 
> became popular, but I'm old enough to remember what it was 
> like before computer technology became mainstream.
>  
> My .02 cents worth.
>  
> 73 - Guy, N7ZG
>  
> 
> 
> 
> > From: bparry at rgv.rr.com> To: Tom at k5rc.cc; 
> cq-contest at contesting.com> 
> > Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 15:20:07 -0500> Subject: Re: 
> [CQ-Contest] Cheating with Technology> > I just don't 
> understand where we are going with this. It appears that 
> folks> want to pick the technology that suits them and call 
> it fine. (SO2R, or> propagation software, or logging 
> software, or remote stations, at al. and> call them cutting 
> edge technology that improves us all. Other technology for> 
> some reason is "persona non gratis" (anything having to do 
> with packet is> equated with sexual assault of children).> > 
> >From contest results, the EVIDENCE I see is that SO2R is a 
> far more valuable> asset than packet. Virtually all the top 
> scoring Single Ops use SO2R. Single> OP scores always seem 
> higher than single op assisted. I don't want to do> SO2R but 
> I say more power to those excellent operators that can use 
> it.> > This new skimmer software seems cool to me. Maybe it 
> is the final coming of> the end, I don't know. I'm not smart 
> enough to see into the future, but I> think that a couple of 
> problems with packet might be fixed if we used the> skimmer 
> instead of individuals inputting calls into the packet 
> system.> > You see, I know a secret! I am never going to win 
> one of these contests. I> operate the contest because I think 
> they are fun and I like to work new band> countries and old 
> friends. I refuse to be told by someone I am a bad> operator 
> if I miscopy too many calls or I use packet. So I choose not 
> to> enter my log! I enter my log into the 3830 Reflector (in 
> the proper> category). I can see how I have done. If contests 
> are made into name calling> contest, lots of guys may decide 
> not to participate. Should make SS on> Sunday afternoon even 
> more fun!> > I think that everyone needs to step back and 
> remember why we got in this> hobby. > > Bill W5VX > > 
> -----Original Message-----> From: 
> cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com> 
> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Tom 
> Taormina> Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 11:09 AM> To: 
> cq-contest at contesting.com> Subject: [CQ-Contest] Cheating 
> with Technology> > > You forgot a big one, Dick. We cheated 
> by using technology to fly to the> Moon. We should have used 
> wooden boats and sails.> > Tom Taormina, K5RC> Virginia City 
> Nevada> http://k5rc.cc> NACHO-W7RN RANN-K7RC> CQ Contest Hall 
> of Fame, FOC 1760> > > > Message: 1> Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 
> 21:13:48 -0700> From: "Dick Dievendorff" 
> <dieven at comcast.net>> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Get out of 
> jail free card> To: <cbrakob at earthlink.net>, "'Jim George'" 
> <n3bb at mindspring.com>,> "'Kelly Taylor'" <ve4xt at mts.net>, 
> <wn3vaw at verizon.net>,> <cq-contest at contesting.com>> 
> Message-ID: <000001c883f7$7952cf10$6bf86d30$@net>> 
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"> > Right. While 
> we're at it, we should ban those pesky memory keyers, it 
> makes> redundant the important contesting skill of manually 
> operating a Morse key.> > And while we're at it, get rid of 
> those pesky computer logging programs, it> makes redundant 
> the important contesting skill of writing legibly and> 
> maintaining a dupe sheet in real time.> > And those durned 
> microcontroller computers that are essential to every> modern 
> transceiver should also be banned. No software power, just 
> people> skills.> > Dick, K6KR> > > 
> _______________________________________________> 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
> _________________________________________________________________
> Helping your favorite cause is as easy as instant messaging. 
> You IM, we give. 
> http://im.live.com/Messenger/IM/Home/?source=text_hotmail_join
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com 
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest



More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list