[CQ-Contest] Don't forget to spot in CQWW SSB

[Ken K6MR]

“How about that?  This is a position universally despised in the contest community.”

I’m not sure that “universally” means “all”,  but I completely agree.  I would like nothing better than to go back to the days of real radio.  So I’m a troglodyte.  So be it  :^)

Make more room in the bunker.

Ken K6MR

From: AB1J via CQ-Contest<mailto:cq-contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Friday, October 29, 2021 08:23
To: pokane at ei5di.com<mailto:pokane at ei5di.com>; cq-contest at contesting.com<mailto:cq-contest at contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Don't forget to spot in CQWW SSB

Well, I'm opposed to anyone who gets spotted considering themselves to be Unassisted.  Assistance works both ways.  It generates a QSO for the P&C station and for the running station.

This is why I was happy to see the Unassisted category eliminated from the CQ-WPX contests.  It's a phony category.  Imagine turning off the clusters and RBN during a major contest and seeing the scores plummet.

Virtually no one is Unassisted anymore, except an entirely S&P station who's Unassisted.

How about that?  This is a position universally despised in the contest community.

You\'ll find me out back hunkered down in my bunker.  I've got enough food for three months. CU later.

73,
Ken, AB1J

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul O'Kane <pokane at ei5di.com>
To: cq-contest at contesting.com
Sent: Fri, Oct 29, 2021 7:47 am
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Don't forget to spot in CQWW SSB

Then, perhaps N4ZR will let us know the "real" reason for K1AR's warning
about the consequences of unintended cluster access.

With regard to technological innovation, I an opposed to "assisted"
being considered a single-op category when it's clearly multi-op.

73,
Paul EI5DI




On 29/10/2021 02:59, Pete Smith N4ZR wrote:
> I'd expect nothing less from you, Paul, given your long opposition to
> all technological innovation - fact is, most cluster software has
> set/nodx or the equivalent, to make sure no spots come your way when
> you don't want them .
>
> 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.
>
> On 10/28/2021 5:38 PM, Paul O'Kane wrote:
>> It's simple - "unassisted" ops risk being DQed for accidental or
>> unintended cluster access/use.
>>
>> 73,
>> Paul EI5DI
>>
>>
>>
>> On 28/10/2021 22:10, Pete Smith N4ZR wrote:
>>> I don't understand, John.  What are you worried about?
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> On 10/28/2021 4:54 PM, John Dorr wrote:
>>>> The CQWW rules allow for outbound spotting as an unassisted entry.
>>>> However, my advice is that if you are unassisted to avoid any use
>>>> of the cluster. You’re only inviting the possibility of unintended
>>>> access (or worse).
>>>>
>>>> 73, John, K1AR
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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