[CQ-Contest] A new "DX cluster" experience for contesters

[Zack Widup]

I tend to agree with most of that. I have no problem with new and advanced
operating aids within one's station. Computer logging, CW keyboards, digital
voice keyers, etc. are all great. Even a band scope of one's own on one's
own receiver would ne a neat tool. It would be interesting to have one that
would decode what it was copying on your receiver and display the callsigns
of these stations.

I don't use packet myself on my own operations. I have been involved in a
few M/S efforts that used packet, and in this case, it really didn't
contribute a lot to our score. We had some big runs and a large percentage
of the packet spots were of stations we'd already worked. A percentage of
the remaining ones were spotted by some station far away and we couldn't
even hear them. Occasionally a packet spot would produce a QSO with a new
mult.

I'm waiting for the day when robots make all the QSO's in a contest. I see
that as useless and that would be the day when I gave up. As of now, it
seems one's score would be the result of four things - operating skill, the
quality of one's station, location and band conditions. Where's the
operating skill in having a robot doing it? I suppose there may be some
skill in writing a program that works, but that's not operating skill. And I
still like to think I'm working a real person at the other end.

Fun is still a major reason why I do contesting. I hope that doesn't go
away.

73, Zack W9SZ

On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 7:21 AM, Paul O'Kane <pokane at ei5di.com> wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kelly Taylor" <theroadtrip at mts.net>
>
> > The question, then, is at what point does technology become
> > unsuitable for contests of skill?
>
> I have already suggested an answer to this question, although
> I've used the word "inappropriate" rather than "unsuitable".
>
> It is when the effect of the technology would be disproportionate
> or when it would change the nature of the activity conerned.
>
> I hold the quaint old-fashioned notion that the nature of
> amateur radio, and of contesting in particular, is to use only
> amateur band RF and modes to find and work other contesters.
>
> <snip>
>
> > is it (a DX contest) a test of the whole bag of skills that
> > go in to the art of working DX? Or is it a test of your
> > ability to integrate all available technology into a
> > winning score?
>
> It is a test of both skill and technology, so long as that
> technology does not change the nature of the activity.
> To the extent that the internet replaces RF, there can be
> no question that the nature of contesting has indeed changed.
>
> > Where does that line get crossed?
>
> By replacing RF with any other communications technology,
> so that the wires have been put back into wireless.
>
> > If I don't even have to decode a QSO myself;
>
> Well, that's not putting the wires back into wireless,
> but it could mean that you have reduced CW to the status
> of just another data mode - you may or may not want that.
>
> > Or is it enough to say that there's an unlimited category
> > and those who want to push the envelope compete by themselves
> > and those who want to stay traditional can stay in the
> > unassisted?
>
> An unlimited category is a meaningless concept.  When
> there are no constraints there can be no real competition.
> How about unlimited mountaineering where you use helicopters
> to get to the top?  No one has yet done it on Everest.
>
> I suggest it's time to time to abandon the outdated
> notion of unassisted and assisted, and call it what it
> is - amateur radio contesting and internet contesting.
>
> I'm an "unassisted" amateur radio contester, and I
> welcome all the help I can get from modern technology
> so long as it doesn't replace RF or decode CW for me.
>
> 73,
> Paul EI5DI
>  _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>