[CQ-Contest] Stew Contest and Multi Op/packet

Mon Dec 19 12:07:33 EST 2016

I understand that but if you are running you have no clue that VK0XX 
might be 5 or 10kc from you or on another band.  Pileup behavior has 
never been wonderful and it seems worse now but can it all be blamed on 
packet?  When a LID finds the pileup he is still a LID right?  I would 
agree that it appears that in the old days that getting in and out of a 
pileup was generally easier. Don't we have more people playing the game 
now?  That certainly has to be a factor too.

This's it?  One thing?

As for people spotting P5 on my freq.  It probably happens.  It is 
easier to deal with now.  People have caught on.  I have seen reports of 
people spotting the wrong callsign or logging the wrong call because RBN 
got it wrong.  This does not happen as much but that should not have any 
effect on a SO unassisted station who has to copy everything on his own.

Packet is the technology and not the problem.  The problem is really the 
bad apples or operators.  How about we blame them instead.  So other 
assisted folks that do it right get punished or reclassified ie treated 
differently because of a few bad actors?  That is not right.

Sure packet can be used to cause problems.  Some lid can choose to dump 
a carrier all over me and chase me around the band, which has happened 
or intentionally QRM by setting up 1 kc away and calling cq endlessly.  
We have to deal with that.  We have to deal with people stealing our run 
frequencies and a whole host of other things out of our control.

Packet can be used for good operating too but we only look at the negative.

W0MU

On 12/19/2016 9:37 AM, Kelly Taylor wrote:
>>
>>
>> Can someone detail how me or others running packet has any impact on 
>> any other competitor?  What am I missing here?  I get the packet pile 
>> up but rare mults always have pileups.
>
>
> Hi Mike,
>
> I remember the days before packet, and yes, the rare mults had 
> pileups. But they grew organically. If you happened to be among the 
> early ones in the pileup, you had a chance, and it built slowly. If 
> you were on the other end, you also had a chance to manage it so it 
> didn’t expand beyond your capacity (not every DX is an N6MJ clone…).
>
> Today, with one spot, it’s an instant 10 KHz wall of sound. Many of 
> those in the wall are wise, respectable operators and a handful are of 
> the idiot variety, who either don’t verify the spot before calling or 
> decide “I’m too important to be smart, so I’m just going to keep 
> sending my call right at zero beat until he answers. Oh, he’s 
> listening up? Too bad. I’m too important for split.” Packet also makes 
> it easier for people to be adding to the QRM even when their focus is 
> on a run frequency elsewhere, so it undoubtedly adds to the pileup 
> that way, as well. (Though I will admit that’s also possible with 
> unassisted SO2R.)
>
> That’s the difference.
>
> The other question is this: if the goal is to work more QSOs and more 
> mults than anyone else, why do you want to tell everyone else where 
> you just found the VK0?
>
> There’s also the potential for tampering, though I don’t know if it’s 
> ever happened; "Oh, W0MU is running on 14.045… let’s spot a P51 there 
> to mess with his rate…"
>
> *Am I saying we should put the genie back in the bottle? No. *
>
> But it’s not correct to say packet has no adverse effect on other 
> operators.
>
> 73, kelly, ve4xt
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> ook at 3830 (which is only a fraction of the actual
>>> entrants) you'll see many multiops that only list one 
>>> operator.(mostly the
>>> LP gang I think)
>>>
>>> True, I suppose its possible some of the fellows filling in the 3830 
>>> form
>>> simply forgot to list all the guys at the station that night. 
>>> (unlikely, but
>>> could happen)
>>>
>>>
>>> Others, however, are apparently of the belief that a Multiop means 
>>> single op
>>> + packet. (guess they never read the rules or are 
>>> creating/justifying their
>>> own rules somehow in their mind)
>>>
>>>
>>> I certainly do not speak for the Boring ARC , nor the SP contest,. 
>>> but if my
>>> ears are to be believed (packet pileups last night) along with 3830 
>>> posts
>>> and misinformed (but perhaps well intended) posts like the ones I 
>>> see from
>>> W0MU, then it would appear at first glance that either folks are using
>>> packet and just putting themselves in a multiop category because they
>>> believe that's what they are supposed  to do (per ARRL convention) or
>>> something else I have not yet thought of.
>>>
>>>
>>> Disappointed? Yes.
>>>
>>> Surprised? Sadly, no not really.
>>>
>>>
>>> Part of the problem may be the way the rules are written or they are
>>> becoming watered down.  I snipped this from the logs rec'd page mere 
>>> moments
>>> ago.  Look for the word assisted:
>>>
>>>
>>> "2016 STEW PERRY
>>>
>>>
>>>       This report generated on Sunday, 18-Dec-16 at 14:58.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Total logs = 436
>>>
>>>
>>> C = Category (CheckLog, Multi or Single).  ASSISTED classified as 
>>> Multi.."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Mike VE9AA FN66
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Mike, Coreen & Corey
>>>
>>> Keswick Ridge, NB
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Ken K6MR [mailto:k6mr at outlook.com]
>>> Sent: December 18, 2016 8:08 PM
>>> To: Mike Smith VE9AA; cq-contest at contesting.com 
>>> <mailto:cq-contest at contesting.com>
>>> Subject: RE: [CQ-Contest] Stew Contest and Multi Op/packet
>>>
>>>
>>> Mike:
>>>
>>>
>>> Rule 6. Seems pretty plain to me. Packet is not allowed for single 
>>> op, and
>>> discouraged for Multi op. Local skimmers appear to be ok, but 
>>> grudgingly.
>>>
>>>
>>> SP appears to be an attempt to hold on to "Boy and his Radio" (copyright
>>> K0HB) contesting.  Kinda like Stew did himself, as I read the history.
>>>
>>>
>>> Fine by me.
>>>
>>>
>>> Ken K6MR
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Mike Smith VE9AA <mailto:ve9aa at nbnet.nb.ca>
>>> Sent: Sunday, December 18, 2016 1:10 PM
>>> To: cq-contest at contesting.com <mailto:cq-contest at contesting.com>
>>> Subject: [CQ-Contest] Stew Contest and Multi Op/packet
>>>
>>>
>>> The Stew Perry contest is not an ARRL event, so entering in Multi Op 
>>> does
>>> not mean "Single Op + Packet"
>>>
>>> I was surprised at a few mini packet pileups I had last night.  Now 
>>> I know
>>> why.
>>>
>>>
>>> After reviewing the DX Cluster today and reading 3830 it's apparent 
>>> nobody
>>> reads rules anymore.
>>>
>>>
>>> In all fairness, there were a couple guys using skimmer/telnet/cluster
>>> submitting properly as checklogs as they were chasing new countries or
>>> whatever.
>>>
>>>
>>> I would suggest to the Boring Club to clarify this point in the multi op
>>> rules. (ie: Multi Op does not mean Single Op + Packet).
>>>
>>>
>>> Mike VE9AA
>>>
>>>
>>> Mike, Coreen & Corey
>>>
>>> Keswick Ridge, NB
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>>> CQ-Contest at contesting.com <mailto: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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>> CQ-Contest at contesting.com <mailto:CQ-Contest at contesting.com>
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>