[CQ-Contest] Allowing self-spotting

W0MU Mike Fatchett w0mu at w0mu.com
Sun Feb 26 11:28:45 EST 2017 

Yep my skimmer located right next to my radio did a lot of work to find 
and spot my station?  Not so much.  I do not actually spot W0MU on my 
skimmer but I probably should have.  Were there any rules disallowing 
such from V3?  If I had a skimmer down here, would I have worked more 
people on 10m because I did not get one skimmer spot?  Most likely.  Are 
there skimmers out there with ID's, as they are not callsigns spotting 
their owners stations all the time?  Bet on it.

As soon as we got new spots in V3 new pileups would show up.  Yes it 
matters.  Maybe not for big 1500watt stations but for the little guy 
with small antennas and low power it is a huge difference maker.  SSB 
will be different because CW is a much better mode for getting out.  I 
was lucky to work one station on 160 SSB last night with 100 watts.  I 
worked stuff much farther away on CW in the CW test.

Radiosport in this hobby happens once every few years for a chosen few.  
The rest of us are participating in the hobby.  There is not much sport 
when the there is never a level playing field. That would be like 
calling gambling a sport VS house where the house has the odds.  Sure 
you might be able to win but in the long haul the house always wins.

W0MU



On 2/26/2017 8:31 AM, Kelly Taylor wrote:
> While I can see the merits of both sides of the argument, I think it’s important to guard against extremism when looking at this idea.
>
> True; VE3NEA is, apparently, trying to develop an SSB Skimmer, and true, CW Skimmer is already a version of self-spotting for CW contests, although with Skimmer, your signal has at least been heard over the air by the Skimmer. As well, since CW Skimmer doesn’t discriminate between assisted and non-assisted operations, even those stations not using assistance get immediate benefits by being spotted.
>
> It’s also true there’s merit in not allowing self-spotting for SSB.
>
> But it’s being hyperbolic to suggest one little tweak to the rules — allowing self-spotting on a limited basis for SSB ops — amounts to moving the whole shebang to online. I don’t see anything proposed that would let anyone call CQ or complete QSOs on the Internet. Indeed, it seems the majority of those proposing self-spotting for SSB are proposing very limited use of self-spotting.
>
> We already have Skimmer doing essentially the same thing as is proposed for SSB, and I don’t hear people saying it’s moved CW contests all online.
>
> Pros:
> You don’t have to worry a friend’s well-intentioned spotting of you could lead to a DQ just because he uses the same ISP.
> Your spot is likely to be correct. (Be pretty damning if you screwed up your own spot!)
> Equalizes differences in rules between CW and SSB owing to the lack of an SSB Skimmer.
> Allows contest committees to focus on other, potentially more egregious, forms of cheating
>
> Cons:
> To be competitive, you have to be connected, which is not always economical depending on location,
> Adds to an already cluttered array of spots,
> Erases one of the last refuges for ‘boy (or girl) and his (or her) radio’ kinds of operations.
>
> Those are the points that should be debated.
>
> 73, kelly, ve4xt
>
> ps: I think it would be an interesting exercise to hold a contest that forbids any forms of viewing of spots. It might be illuminating then to have the RBN filter out a variety of active stations and then insert manually spots of a few of those filtered stations, and see whether the pileups continue to grow organically or whether a spot produces a “packet pileup,” and then how many of those stations in the packet pileup submit logs claiming to have followed the rules.
>
>
>
>> On Feb 26, 2017, at 7:00 AM, Jukka Klemola <jpklemola at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Good.
>> I hope the World of contest judging would be so simple.
>> There is more.
>>
>> Next question we see in the Pandora's box:
>>
>> HE4RME complains on CQ-Contest reflector:
>> I called CQ on Internet Protocol.
>> I was asked on internet protocol if I heard CQ0IP calling me.
>> CQ0IP himself was asking.
>>
>> I have CQ0IP in my contest log submission and also CQ0IP has me on his log
>> submission.
>> CQ0IP wrote a frequency on his message so I QSYed there and I was there.
>> But the evidence the contest committee presents as a true recording on the
>> band shows there was no actual radio contact.
>> How can the committee say there was no radio contact?
>> We both were transmitting each others' calls on the same frequency!
>> Why are we penalized for our activity?
>>
>>
>> I hope this clarifies the opening gray line to all.
>>
>>
>> 73,
>> Jukka OH6LI
>>
>> 2017-02-26 14:30 GMT+02:00 Helmut Mueller <helmut at photo42.de>:
>>
>>> I don't see the Problem.
>>>
>>> Unassisted = NOT Cluster = No Spots = No Selfspots
>>> Assisted = Allow self spotting
>>>
>>> 73
>>>
>>>   Helmut DF7ZS
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>>> Von: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] Im Auftrag von
>>> Jukka Klemola
>>> Gesendet: Sunday, 26 February, 2017 10:51 AM
>>> An: Joe <nss at mwt.net>
>>> Cc: cq-contest <cq-contest at contesting.com>
>>> Betreff: Re: [CQ-Contest] Allowing self-spotting
>>>
>>> Sirs,
>>> I have difficulties following this discussion.
>>>
>>> There are people selling the idea to allow self-spotting.
>>>
>>>
>>> Which way are we going:
>>> -allowing CQ calling on internet
>>> -keeping the un-assisted category
>>>
>>> .. or are we developing extreme double.standard or what is going on?
>>>
>>>
>>> A glimpse into the Pandora's box we are now cranking open:
>>> Is a station using CQoIP but claims not using spotting data, is such
>>> entrant
>>> un-assisted?
>>>
>>>
>>> 73,
>>> Jukka OH6LI
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2017-02-26 3:04 GMT+02:00 Joe <nss at mwt.net>:
>>>
>>>> I also like this self spotting.
>>>>
>>>> BUT.....  and there always is a BUT isn't there? I like the three
>>>> QSO's rule, BUT.  there needs to also be a max per hour?
>>>>
>>>> Then gain here we are, back to the same problem, UG!
>>>>
>>>> I can just see someone spotting themself after every q.
>>>>
>>>> Joe WB9SBD
>>>> Sig
>>>> The Original Rolling Ball Clock
>>>> Idle Tyme
>>>> Idle-Tyme.com
>>>> http://www.idle-tyme.com
>>>> On 2/24/2017 4:30 PM, Stan Stockton wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Yes.  This is what I wrote about a year and a half ago:
>>>>>
>>>>> 2015-10-28 4:06 GMT+01:00 Stan Stockton <wa5rtg at gmail.com>:
>>>>> There should be a rule allowing the software to automatically submit
>>>>> a self spot after you have logged perhaps three QSOs on the same
>>>>> frequency - same rule for everyone. After all, when you call CQ on CW
>>>>> you are, in effect, self spotting. There is a huge advantage in being
>>>>> spotted and, on SSB, there is a huge difference in the number of
>>>>> spots for different stations giving advantage to those who are
>>>>> spotted frequently and quickly after a frequency change. 73... Stan,
>>>>> K5GO
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 24, 2017, at 9:49 AM, Steve London <n2icarrl at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On CW, we already have the equivalent of self spotting, thanks to CW
>>>>>> Skimmer and the RBN. It's virtually impossible to NOT be spotted. CW
>>>>>> Skimmer/RBN is the great equalizer - you no longer have to depend on
>>>>>> a network of friends to spot you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We wouldn't be having this discussion if there was a SSB Skimmer.
>>>>>> Right now, we have a system where "those with the right friends"
>>>>>> have an advantage. Why not simply allow self spotting on SSB ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 73,
>>>>>> Steve, N2IC
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 02/22/2017 12:22 PM, Bob Henderson wrote:
>>>>>>> Having myself met with unfair and unjustified treatment at the
>>>>>>> hands of RDXC adjudicators I can empathise with those claiming
>>>>>>> unfair treatment in adjudication.  However in this case having
>>>>>>> looked at the information supplied and done a little further
>>>>>>> digging, I am unsure my empathy is justified.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 3V8SS it seems acknowledges cheer-leading by his fellow Tunisians
>>>>>>> KG5OUE and F4HJD but claims not to have encouraged it.  I am
>>>>>>> inclined to believe him, given some of my own friends have spotted
>>>>>>> me during contests and I have NEVER, that is NOT EVER, asked anyone
>>>>>>> to do so.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That said, HB9EOU appears to be rather more than a random contact
>>>>>>> with Switzerland.  Last year HB9EOU operated in the IOTA contest
>>>>>>> from 3V8SM on Djerba Island AF-083 along with F4HJD.  Ash (3V8SS) +
>>>>>>> F4HJD + 3V8CB had activated 3V8SM from Djerba Island a couple of
>>>>>>> months earlier.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The recording of the contact with HB9EOU seems odd, though the
>>>>>>> events not entirely inexplicable but small circles in which the
>>>>>>> same calls crop up repetitively raise questions.  Perhaps it's all
>>>>>>> an extraordinary coincidence but there is enough doubt for me to
>>>>>>> wonder whether my empathy might have been misplaced.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bob, 5B4AGN
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 09:48:33 -0600
>>>>>>> From: "Doug Renwick" <ve5ra at sasktel.net>
>>>>>>> To: "'Ashraf Chaabane'" <ash.kf5eyy at gmail.com>, "'cq-contest'"
>>>>>>>          <cq-contest at contesting.com>
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] R: Re: R: 3V8SS disqualified from WW SSB and
>>>>>>>          WRTC
>>>>>>> Message-ID: <E976655BE7DB448B8806659C02036C2C at DOUG8PC>
>>>>>>> Content-Type: text/plain;       charset="us-ascii"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> After reading your post and based on your response to the
>>>>>>> committee, I would conclude that Bob, W5OV; Doug, KR2Q; Scott, W4PA
>>>>>>> are nitpickers with an agenda.
>>>>>>> If anything valid is further introduced to support the committee's
>>>>>>> decision, then I would revise my opinion. As it stands, I believe
>>>>>>> you were unfairly DQd.
>>>>>>> Doug
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>> From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On
>>>>>>> Behalf Of Ashraf Chaabane
>>>>>>> Sent: February-22-17 7:34 AM
>>>>>>> To: cq-contest
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] R: Re: R: 3V8SS disqualified from WW SSB
>>>>>>> and WRTC
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mike, Ria and all,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I put online the CC accusations (their native emails) and my
>>> responses:
>>>>>>> http://www.kf5eyy.info/3V8SS_WWSSB16_DQ.htm
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think that allows everyone to read from both sides. Now it's up
>>>>>>> to you to comment!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 73
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Ash ~ 3V8SS/KF5EYY
>>>>>>> http://www.kf5eyy.info/
>>>>>>> Phone/SMS: (+216) 22670026
>>>>>>> Skype: kf5eyy
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list