[CQ-Contest] Self spotting versus cheerleading

[Tree]

> I think Tree was talking about "cheerleading", but, to me, it applies to all
> spotting.  Most of us agree that it's wrong for 4Q2OM to spot himself.  Buf
> if  K3KU spots 4Q2OM, then 'OM is receiving help, even by non-amateur radio
> means.  This points out why cheerleading is so ethically problematic, and it
> points out the whole issue about packet (and, by logical extension, even
> with the old local on-the-air spotting networks.)

Exactly.  I think the there are two basic problems at play here:

1. Each packet spot has too much value.

2. People think that if you allow self spotting - the end of the world is 
here.

Most people who don't like packet - REALLY don't like the idea of self 
spotting.  However, I am wondering if allowing self spottig might actually
do more to reduce the value of each packet spot - to the point that packet
no longer has some of the really bad problems that it currently causes.

I have spoken before about this situation where I was at TI1C in the CQ WW
contest trying to work weak DLs on 15 meters.  If there was one or two of
them calling, I could work them.  However, as soon as I got spotted, there
were 200 of them calling and it was impossible to deal with them.  I would
QSY up the band and call CQ - and the "normal pattern of activity" resulted
which meant I had one or two of them calling at a time.  This was great 
until I got spotted again and the pack showed up.  I finally gave up and 
ran USA stations instead.  Their loss.

However, if somehow there are enough packet spots to make each spot less
valuable - maybe the more natural activity patterns will return.  

And how many of us packet eschewers were enjoying the continuous pileups on
DX stations during the contest - that would continue to get fueled from 
packet and reward the DX station for not bothering to sign his callsign 
very often?  How about those FT5GA spots that appeared on frequencies that
some other DX stations was working (like TX5xxx) and since nobody bothers
signing their callsigns - you really had no idea who you just worked.

I see the current situation with possible abuses like cheerleading, or
masking your callsign to be a real problem.  There have been cases not
widely known about where top ten stations have been caught doing this
and their scores disappeared from the results.  It is powerful - it is
tempting and some people are doing it well enough to get away with it.

It sucks.

> (Side question: Would we consider it differently if K3KU, with his unlimited
> USA telephone plan,  telephoned a few hundred friends and gave them the
> freq to find 4Q2OM?)

Exactly my point.  What really is the big difference from doing this for 
yourself - or having other people do it for you?  Just because someone
else inputs the data into the internet - doesn't mean the impact is somehow
less.  Not all stations will have a equal input rate - so it just isn't
fair!!

> I've said before, using satiric hyperbole, "Packet ruined ham radio."  It
> seems to me that Tree agrees.  

Yup.

> Responding to EI5DI he says (ibid.):
> 
> "[EI5DI:] * That's precisely why spotting (of any kind) should not be
> permitted **in contests.*
> **
> "I agree with this statement personally.  However, I am afraid this just
> isn't going to be possible."
> 
> If Tree agrees with me, I feel vindicated.  And I agree with him: it ain't
> gonna go away.  And maybe enough people will approve of self-spotting so
> that it becomes accepted/premitted.  Heck, maybe they'll start counting
> internet-linked QSOs for score.

Enjoy your vindication!!

I still think it is important for QSOs to be made over the air.  Perhaps if
the cluster is free game for anyone - it will be factored out and we can 
feel better that the contest results have more to do with the factors we want
to be emphasized were at play - as opposed to how many times you got spotted.

Let's hook skimmers up to the cluster.  Once anyone CQs on the band, let 
everyone know they are there!!  Why not?  Or are we using a DX tool the 
wrong way?  Hmmmm.

73 Tree