[CQ-Contest] Past Prediction of the Future of Contesting.

[Jeff Clarke]

Ria,

With all due respect just because some of us of us don't want to use 
certain technologies doesn't make us "anti technology"? Do all of us 
have to operate the same way using the same technologies? Have you ever 
thought that there are many contesters who like to operate non-assisted 
because it gives them more personal satisfaction? Personally I get more 
satisfaction finding my own contacts and multipliers instead of 
operating in a way that's like catching fish in a barrel. I can 
guarantee there are many contesters who have the same feeling as I do. I 
have no problem if people operate the way they want to. (assisted or 
non-assisted) Unfortunately the Single-Op rule changes in CQ WPX has 
taken away the option to choose the way you want to operate. Pretty much 
you have to operate assisted if you want to have a competitive score.

Jeff KU8E


On 8/22/2021 5:49 PM, rjairam at gmail.com wrote:
> 97.1 Basis and purpose.
>
> ...
>
> (b) Continuation and extension of the amateur's proven ability to
> contribute to the advancement of the radio art.
>
> Hams being so anti technology is mind blowing. I have never seen such
> a paradox except in ham radio.
>
> (yes, it also talks about skill but that doesn't mean we have to shun
> technology).
>
> You don't have to use a voice skimmer, but someone will invent it. I
> hope that contest rules at least adapt to it - keep the unassisted
> categories (too late CQ WPX) without skimmer but allow it for assisted
> or "unlimited" categories.
>
> We already have the existing cluster with all of the "mechanical
> turks" putting in DX spots anyway.
>
> 73
> Ria, N2RJ
>
> On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 10:01 PM Hans Brakob <kzerohb at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Please, no, a thousand times NO!
>>
>> 73, de Hans, KØHB
>> “Just a Boy and his Radio”™
>> ________________________________
>> From: CQ-Contest <cq-contest-bounces+kzerohb=gmail.com at contesting.com> on behalf of Richard F DiDonna NN3W <richnn3w at gmail.com>
>> Sent: Friday, August 20, 2021 7:25:35 AM
>> To: Frank Donovan W3LPL (Frank Donovan W3LPL) <donovanf at erols.com>
>> Cc: reflector cq-contest <CQ-Contest at contesting.com>
>> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Past Prediction of the Future of Contesting.
>>
>> I guess the logical follow-up is what's next:
>>
>> I vote for voice "skimmer"...
>>
>> 73 Rich NN3W
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 8:18 AM <donovanf at erols.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks for sharing this Pete.
>>>
>>>
>>> Many of the forecasts proved to be accurate, but as often happens
>>> with forecasts , two of the most revolutionary changes that have
>>> greatly impacted contesting were totally unanticipated:
>>>
>>>
>>> - CW Skimmer and its associated Reverse Beacon Network, and
>>> - Explosive growth in the use of digital error correcting protocols,
>>> especially FT8
>>>
>>>
>>> "It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future" – Yogi Berra
>>>
>>> 73
>>> Frank
>>> W3LPL
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>
>>> From: "Pete Smith N4ZR" <pete.n4zr at gmail.com>
>>> To: "reflector cq-contest" <CQ-Contest at Contesting.COM>
>>> Sent: Friday, August 20, 2021 2:17:22 AM
>>> Subject: [CQ-Contest] Past Prediction of the Future of Contesting.
>>>
>>> In 2007, ES5TV compiled reflector users' predictions/guesses/wild-ass
>>> guesses about what contesting would look like ten years hence. It's now
>>> 4 years past his original time horizon, and I thought people would find
>>> it interesting, so I've put it in my Dropbox account at
>>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/uzpj6vhxuqtp6sf/10%20years%20later.pdf?dl=0
>>> <https://www.dropbox.com/s/uzpj6vhxuqtp6sf/10%20years%20later.pdf?dl=0>.
>>> Feel free to download the pdf and giggle...
>>>
>>> --
>>> 73, Pete N4ZR
>>> Check out the new Reverse Beacon Network
>>> web server at <http://beta.reversebeacon.net>.
>>> For spots, please use your favorite
>>> "retail" DX cluster.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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