[CQ-Contest] FT4 - Robotic Contesting

[Edward Sawyer]

Hello Rudy.  To be clear, I am not resisting innovation.  It just has no place being mixed in with other modes and call it "the same but different".  If FT8/4 users want to robo war each other - go for it.  No issue.

The answer to your fundamental question is that the operator decodes CW and SSB before entering in the log by ear and brain.  If that is eliminated, then I agree with you.  If someone is pulling RBN spots, clicking them, and never being part of it, its no different than FT8/4.  This would explain why so many dupes are appearing and people not understanding the Serial number exchange on WPX CW.  Sounds like serial numbers should be added to every contest to eliminate such things.

73

Ed  N1UR

-----Original Message-----
From: Rudy Bakalov [mailto:r_bakalov at yahoo.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2019 8:57 AM
To: cq-contest at contesting.com; Edward Sawyer
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] FT4 - Robotic Contesting

Ed,

I understand your reaction to FT4. Only time will tell how it will be adopted in contesting. Before sounding the alarm, we should consider the following:

1) FT4/FT8 and other modern digital modes have extensive error correction algorithms built-in. Nothing show up on your screen if the message has not been correctly received.  That is, CW and RTTY, there is absolutely no human involvement in deciding, not even human “error correction”.

2) Specific to FT4, the operating behavior you described is essentially the same as the stack in N1MM. You can let N1MM populate the stack and the only thing a human does is pressing ENTER. If you chose so, you can populate the stack by clicking on calls and have N1MM prioritize the stack just like FT4 does.

I would argue that the truly profound change is the complete elimination of the human from any decoding activities. Everything else is noise...but this is only my personal opinion.

At the higher level, I don’t understand those who resist innovation and yet have no problem accepting computer logging, keyer or computer generated CW, etc. I challenge any top contester to forgo computer automation and win over the average competitor.

Rudy N2WQ 

Sent using a tiny keyboard.  Please excuse brevity, typos, or inappropriate autocorrect.


> On Apr 30, 2019, at 6:59 AM, Edward Sawyer <EdwardS at sbelectronics.com> wrote:
> 
> I am not sure how many people are aware of a new FT mode that was just released.  The mode called FT-4 has a few new features.
> 
> The first is that its quicker by trading S/N capture algorithm for speed of contacts.  I read somewhere there is a 10db price to pay on the weak signal capability.
> 
> The second is it allows for more flexibility of contest exchanges.
> 
> The third is disturbing.  It allows for an automated feature that decides the best contact available of the decoded possibilities (like a new mult) and just goes for it automatically.  The operator doesn't click on the call, the operator clicks on the desire to find the best call.
> 
> Because of the simplistic possibility of having a screen macro just keep clicking on "find the best call", a feeble attempt to thwart full robotic capability is made to swap the button on the screen with the cancel button.  Although this is NOT done after every QSO but only after "a few QSOs" whatever that means.  So even with this attempt, the acceptance of a few automated and optimized QSOs has been declared acceptable.  Just not 100% fully robotic.  Although whether this attempt to move buttons actually prevents a macro from engaging the button is not assured to me.  People more knowledgably on such things can comment.
> 
> I hope that the Contest community is watching this slippery slope slide.  Fire up FT4, decode the signals in the pass band, Automatically find a few and work them without the operator even knowing which ones are being worked.  Seriously, what is the point?  If a robot war contest is desired, I am all for it and think it's a cool concept.  But we don't put 6 year olds in the ring to fight with robots in robowars and we shouldn't be mixing the two in contesting either.
> 
> Contesters ignore this disturbing trend and acceptance by sponsors at their peril in my opinion.
> 
> 73
> 
> Ed  N1UR
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest