[CQ-Contest] Self-spotting explanation from CQWW blog

[W0MU Mike Fatchett]

Mark,

We have anything goes now.  Whatever goes.  If you have the money build 
the biggest station in the world and compete against people with dipoles 
and single radios who are on limited incomes or they have lower paying 
jobs.  Anything goes as long as you can afford it?  It is the only 
"sport" that I know of that does not have limits to the classes.  
Sailing, car racing all allow you to spend whatever you want but the 
boat or car must be built to a detailed specification.  Yes, there are 
probably a few unlimited classes for the very wealthy and they compete 
among themselves.

The internet is an option just like SO2R, just like multiple towers, 
antennas and radios.  Nobody is forcing the internet on you, anymore 
that you were forced to use SO2R or multiple antennas.

W0MU



On 4/17/2017 7:05 AM, MARK BAILEY wrote:
> Hi Rich:
>
> I do not agree that forcing everyone who wants to compete onto the internet ("nail in the coffin for the single operator categories") is the right answer - I think we should retain single-operator categories.
>
> Clearly, the assisted and multi-operator categories will continue to move more and more on to the internet (self-spotting, social media, etc.).  There should continue to be single operator categories for the luddites like me who want the option to play on the radio - and these categories should prohibit self-spotting.
>
> There may be cheating that cannot be detected, similar to the situation with power cheating and remote receivers, but that is not a sufficient reason to eliminate categories.  Otherwise, we end up with a single category: "anything goes".
>
> 73,
>
> Mark, KD4D
>
>> On April 17, 2017 at 6:55 AM Rich Assarabowski <konecc at snet.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> This just appeared on CQ WW
>> http://cqww.com/blog/cqww-2016-ssb-self-spotting-and-entrant-audio-recording
>> s/ .    I know the intimate details of two situations from the last CQWW
>> where genuine friends, unrelated to the contest effort and with NO
>> communication with the contest operation were trying to help out and spot
>> their buddies, resulting in DQ letters to the contest operation.   The
>> explanation below by KR2Q clarifies the definition of self-spotting.
>>
>> To me the logic of self-spotting as defined by KR2Q is completely flawed.
>> It basically says that it's OK to spot a friend but not too fast, not too
>> often, and never when you hear his rate dropping.    The assumption made
>> that frequent and fast spotting "indicate linkage to the mother station" is
>> absurd.   These rules now open up the opportunity that if you don't like
>> someone, just spot him a few times (and no one else) and they will
>> automatically get DQ'ed.
>>
>>   
>>
>> It's finally time for a rules change - allow self-spotting.   One way is to
>> have logging software send out automatic spots of yourself based on a
>> commonly agreed upon algorithm, e.g. every X minutes, every new QSY, etc.
>> The issue here is what to do about single-ops who are not connected to the
>> internet and those in locations without internet service.     This could be
>> the "nail in the coffin" for the single-op category with no Internet
>> connection and penalizes those operations who do not have Internet service.
>> Incidentally, the T48K operation got DQ'ed for self-spotting and they did
>> NOT have Internet service in Cuba.    Ask K1XX, K1EP and K1MM about that one
>> ;)
>>
>>   
>>
>> --- Rich K1CC
>>
>>   
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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