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

[Glenn Wyant]

Third class.....

Those former contesters who have grown tired
of  the on line bitching, complaining and accusations;
and now given up on contesting , reverting back to a
more simple and relaxing style of radio operation.

Glenn VA3DX

Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] World Wide Digi DX Contest Results.


> 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.
>
>
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>