[CQ-Contest] Self spotting rationale

Robert Chudek - K0RC k0rc at citlink.net
Tue Jul 28 19:17:55 PDT 2009

This isn't a rhetorical question.

How / why was the "no self spotting" rule created in the first place? Was it a knee-jerk reaction to the introduction of new technology at the time spotting networks began to flourish? What actual purpose does this rule serve? Whatever that purpose, is it outdated by technology?

The use of the spotting networks automatically classifies a participant as "assisted" in the first place. To the non-assisted participants, why would they care whether stations were self-spotting or not? When I operate in the non-assisted category I don't care what is going on with the spotting network.

To the participants in the "assisted" category, why not let them spot their brains out? Other than saturating the spotting network I don't see a down-side to this. If an assisted station spotted themselves once every X minutes, many things would "fall into place."

First, there would be fewer busted calls being spotted. Second, assisted operators would know which bands were being used by the self spotter (are they operating 10 meters right now or not?). Third, self spotting timers could evolve in contest software to spot on a predetermined schedule. Fourth, David's spotting reports would not be necessary to see who was breaking the rules. Fifth, I wouldn't have to worry whether my call would appear on a report as "helping my team mates in our contest club" when I spot the members. (I have basically quit spotting anyone compared to the early days of the spotting network.)

I can only imagine if Wal-Mart, Target, and K-Mart were not allowed to advertise their stores were open for business and what times you would find them open. I think the "no self spotting" rule is absurd.

73 de Bob - KØRC in MN

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list