[CQ-Contest] Self Spotting

Thu Mar 9 10:57:23 EST 2023

Stan - yes, you understand exactly.
When I was a W3LPL op in the late 80s/early 90s I kinda liked the rule that multi ops could not go home and work the multi using their own calls.  I seriously doubt that could have ever swung any contest results ever but it felt right. Same with the no skeds rule. Same with old rule against self spotting.
Encouraging turning on Spot All S&P QSOs is the standard practice I've seen, not "Just Spot Club Members" but if self spotting is seen as a way for smaller clubs, or DXpeditions from smaller clubs, to equalize, great.
As I said, I'm not looking to change the decision to impact what others want to do, just want the tools to do what I'd like to do.
73 John K3TN

-----Original Message-----
From: Stan Stockton <wa5rtg at gmail.com>
To: jpescatore at aol.com
Cc: cq-contest at contesting.com <cq-contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Thu, Mar 9, 2023 10:32 am
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Self Spotting

John,
I am trying to understand.  You want to use the spotting network but only want to see spots for Station 2 that are generated by someone other than Station 2?  In both cases you are using information that comes from a source other than amateur means to know the callsign and the frequency for Station 2.  I guess your choices are to operate without assistance or use what shows up.  I would not differentiate between K3TN being spotted by a dozen different PVRC members and a N7___ who was not a member of a club and had no spots other than the one he created for himself if I chose to operated in the assisted category using callsign and frequency information provided by others through a non-amateur means of delivery.  
I operated at K4VX several times and although we were in the M/M category, it was not allowed by Lew to use the spotting information that would have been readily available.  It was more exciting when you found a double multiplier but was certainly not a competitive way to operate in the M/M category.  Historically operators have either been for or against spotting assistance.  Yours is a new one, if I understand correctly, where you are OK with using spotting assistance as long as the station does not spot itself in absence of friends who will.
73...Stan, K5GO

On Thu, Mar 9, 2023 at 8:55 AM <jpescatore at aol.com> wrote:

Hi, Stan - In the big club I'm in (PVRC) I'm in the minority for not liking self spotting and I'm not even trying to change the decision to allow it. I'm just looking for a way not to take advantage of it because it doesn't feel right to me. If the AR cluster filter syntax allowed me to simply filter out CALL=SPOTTER I'd just do that, but it doesn't and W9PA says no chance of that happening soon.
History files don't feel right to me, either - so I don't use them. To be honest, I kinda enjoy that when I'm operating a VA station remotely and am JOHN VA vs. JOHN MD that the number of ops who bust my exchange jumps 3x!  K3ZO used to quote Lenny W3GRF and say "It is a listening contest just as much, if not more, than a sending contest..." Of course, Fred never used filters, either...
So, I voiced my opinion to the CAC, self spotting was approved - no problem.  Just looking for some tools to differentiate, just the way if I was anti-Internet (I'm not) I can choose to filter out non-human spots. 
73 John K3TN

-----Original Message-----
From: Stan Stockton <wa5rtg at gmail.com>
To: jpescatore at aol.com
Cc: cq-contest at contesting.com <cq-contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Thu, Mar 9, 2023 9:32 am
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Self Spotting

John,

Here is my take on self spotting.  On CW you have a perfectly fair situation.  If you can generate a signal that can be heard by a Skimmer station you will be spotted automatically by the RBN. There is no reason for your friends to spot you or for you to spot yourself.  It will have minimal to no impact unless you don’t have a signal picked up by any Skimmer stations.

On SSB, without self- spotting, you have an unfair situation where the difference between winning and losing could be the difference in how many of your friends spot you versus how many of your competitors’ friends spot them.  

It would be totally unfair for a station to win a contest because he was in a big club with several members spotting him regularly while the better operator at the better station lost because he didn’t have that support. Self spotting on SSB levels the playing field to a great extent just like the RBN does on CW.

73…Stan, K5GO

> On Mar 9, 2023, at 7:49 AM, K3TN via CQ-Contest <cq-contest at contesting.com> wrote:
> 
> Self spotting obviously did not ruin the ARRL SSB, and it is definitely one now legal way to increase score. But, it just doesn't feel right. Below is what I sent to Bob W5OV in the ARRL contest forum and directly to the CAC.
> Context: Bud AA3B both independently put in similar but slightly different feature requests to the N1MM Logger+ team to support comment field labeling of self spots. Bud's implemented - you can now include text in your self spot, Bud suggested "QRV" and a few were doing that. Bud's goal was to make finding self spots more easily. The version pushed out before the ARRL DX SSB includes Bud's suggestion.
> Mine was rejected - I wanted a default value put in the text field so I could choose to filter out self-spots. Right now the AR cluster syntax doesn't support doing so. That would hurt me more than it would hurt any self spotter, but, like not using history files, it is what I'd like to do.
> I'm going to check to see if there has been a feature request turn Spot All S&P Qs by default, which I think is a much better solution.
> 73 John K3TN
> 
> Hi, Bob - I feel like self spotting goes against the values we've had in contesting and contesting rules for many years.
> 
> In the past there have been little things, like MultiMulti ops not being allowed to go home and work the MM from home. That was never going to swing the results but it represented a value that QSOs should be made the right way, kinda like fishing in a barrel is not an acceptable norm in fishing.
> 
> I sent in comments that I was against it in HF non-SSB contests where we already have skimmers doing a fine job of spotting stations large and small. I'm not a big VHF contester so don't think my opinion shouldn't count there  - but I feel the same way there! Contesting and skeds to me should not go together, nor should self-spotting.
> 
> The rules changed, so be it. I'd like a way in CW and RTTY contest for me to not participate. I doubt that is a meaningful punishment to anyone but me, and it let's me maintain my values. The other way would be for me to only look at skimmer spots, which would punish me a bit more!
> 
> I would have much, much, much rather see the CAC and members talk with the contesting community to think of ways rules could be changed to encourage more spotting in SSB contests - that is the real issue that was trying to be addressed, since there is no shortage of spots in CW and RTTY tests.
> 
> A feature request to N1MM to make the "Spot every S&P QSO" the default would have been a simple step. The ARRL using RBN stats after the contest to have "Top 10 Human Spotter" listings in the results, maybe even offer $20 coffee cups to the top spotters, etc. Many other ways to get more spots in SSB tests.
> 
> I've been a fan of leaping on most technology changes that have caused controversy, like FT8 and remote operating. But to me this (and history files that I choose not to use) are like post contest log manipulation. A norm that I'd like to see N1MM Logger+ enable choice in, just the way Logger+ was changed years ago to make post-contest log manipulation harder (not impossible!).
> 
> 73 John K3TN
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest