[CQ-Contest] World Wide Digi DX Contest Results.

[DXer]

Hi Peter,

That's a valid concern, and the excerpt from the committee message you 
quoted should 'buy' all critics some time:

"For the FT mode it is not yet clear where the fault is..."

Read the preceding messages again, and you'll see that was not the issue.

The issue there, whether 'flowered' or not, was still FT-X is not 
hamradio, no skills, boring, unsophisticated users, etc.

As I said before, FT-X contesting is not likely to be my 'thing', but 
give it a chance, if you are concerned about contesting.

If you are still in 'mode wars' mood, give it a rest. Other 'experts' 
say the FT craze will die out in 3 years or so, let it happen on its own 
then. Natural death is one thing, 'premeditated murder' is another.

73 de Vince, VA3VF

On 2020-01-12 12:56, Peter Sundberg wrote:
> But there is a major problem when the contest committee tell us that 
> they had to waive the NIL penalty because otherwise a large number of 
> stations would end up with a negative score.
> 
> Furthermore the committee states the following:
> 
> "In the legacy modes, the "fault" for a NIL is most always on the side 
> that logged the QSO. For
> the FT mode it is not yet clear where the fault is, but in any case, the 
> amount of NILs is
> abnormally high.  Going forward, FT contesting needs to better define 
> how QSO partners can reliably
> communicate whether a QSO is complete and should be logged. The 
> responsibility resides both
> with contest participants and FT contest software developers."
> 
> Yes Vince, a contest is a contest and the goal is the same. But when the 
> operator is unable to decide whether a QSO should be logged or not, to 
> me it that's a clear indication that automation has gone too far.  
> Especially when the committee says that the amount of NILs is abnormally 
> high.
> 
> The operator is "in the back seat" and certainly NOT up front driving. 
> Now that's where there's clearly room for criticizing the concept.
> 
> 73
> Peter SM2CEW