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

[Paul O'Kane]

It seems to me that VA3VF is sitting on the fence.  It is clear that, in 
ham radio, there are two basic classes of contest operators, drivers and 
passengers.  Drivers decode other transmissions themselves, and everyone 
else is a passenger.  This is independent of mode.

Could there be room for for a third class - data-processing contesters?  
VA3VF implies there might be - I say no chance!  When and if the FT 
craze dies out, there will be yet another "more-advanced data mode" to 
take its place and, once again, its users will be passengers.  Sure, it 
will still be contesting of one kind or another - your machine competing 
with my machine.

http://lists.contesting.com/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2019-05/msg00086.html

73,
Paul EI5DI



On 12/01/2020 18:20, DXer wrote:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest