[CQ-Contest] Ban all contest spotting?

[Dennis McAlpine]

But, what if one is an S&Per and changes frequency a lot?  Then an update
every 30 min is not enough.  If you are looking for that rare SC mult in SS
and you see me spotted 28 minutes ago, the chances are good that I am no
longer on that frequency.  This means that rare SC mult may continue to
elude you.

I make it a practice that if I come across a station calling CQ and it is
not on my band map, I spot him so that everyone will know where that station
is.  That is a simple Alt-P on n1mm.

The other option is to incorporate a built is skimmer into every radio and
then you don't need to worry about spots that you can't hear.  Three cheers
for skimmer!!!

73,
Dennis, K2SX

-----Original Message-----
From: w1md at cfl.rr.com [mailto:w1md at cfl.rr.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2009 9:53 AM
To: k1ep.list at gmail.com; Glenn Wyant; CQ-Contest at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Ban all contest spotting?

So...maybe this is a "good" argument for allowing self-spotting. Say, allow
each contestant in the contest the option to post their call/freq. every
30min's . (no more reports of the 'most spotted calls'...since everyone who
is ON the network should have roughly the same number of spots over the
weekend...96...no more cheerleaders or self spotters...WE'd ALL be self
spotters)

The good:

1.  Ensures that the packet spot is correct...no busted calls
2.  GREATLY reduces network traffic (It amazes me sometimes to watch the raw
data feeds and see the multiple simultaneous spots of a station that go
through).
3.  Puts EVERYONE on the same playing field. 
4.  With periodic spots, the packet pileups would fade away.
5.  No more having to hit ALT-F3 or whatever your logging program requires.
6.  Have the logging software implement the periodic updates automatically
and NOT allow any manual spots.


Seems like a 'win win'. :)

Marty
W1MD
---- Ed K1EP <k1ep.list at gmail.com> wrote: 
> At 11/2/2009 02:11 PM, Glenn Wyant wrote:
> 
> >Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Ban all contest spotting?
> >
> > >I propose that those who dont want clusters; that they dont use them.
> > >
> > > I propose that those who like using clusters ; use them.
> > >
> > > Assuming they claim the proper category , IF they submit a contest
entry.
> > >
> > > I am one of those low-life ,  cripples that uses the cluster (
assisted )
> > > now and then , sorry to those who wish control my operating
preferences.
> > >
> > > Glenn VA3DX
> 
> For me, as a low power non-assisted contester, the use of packet in a 
> contest is not merely an argument of whether it is a crutch or not, 
> it affects the way I contest, even though I do not use it.  Packet in 
> a contest creates "packet pileups".  Once a sought after station is 
> spotted, a tremendous, sometimes unruly, pileup ensues.  As an 
> unassisted low power contester, I seek out the DX by tuning.  When I 
> find one, I would like the opportunity to work him without hundreds 
> of packet people descending upon him.  If, on the other hand, I am 
> running and spotted incorrectly, I will all of a sudden have a flood 
> of eager contesters calling me.  Many will have already worked me and 
> be dupes.  This causes me to either QSY or work many dupes and reduce 
> my effective rate.  So, the use of packet it not an isolated event, 
> it just doesn't help or assist the operator using it, it affects all 
> the other contesters.  Whether these effects are beneficial or not 
> should be the discussion.  If packet could be used by an assisted 
> operator without affecting others, then I am all for it.  In reality, 
> that isn't the case.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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