[SEDXC] Contest Scoring

[Jeff Carter]

On Friday June 22 2007 04:45, Tommy wrote:
> Jeff,
>
> When I first read your post, my first impression was that you were trying
> to stir up controversy rather than get an unanswerable question discussed;
> I'm not sure now that I was entirely incorrect with that impression.

Well, the answers seemed to indicate that when viewed as a communication 
"protocol" (think TCP/IP) it takes roughly twice as long to set 
up/communicate/tear down a CW circuit than it does a SSB one.  Taking this as 
true, it makes the scoring more equitable to do it this way.  In other words, 
rather than being exclusionary to the number of hams that no longer speak 
Morse, it is an attempt to be fair to everybody, and nobody can argue with 
that.  The question *was* answered, from several viewpoints, and in my view 
it was answered quite well.

> Your photo on QRZ insinuates you are connected somehow with football? 

I'm a member of the Society of Broadcast Engineers and I participate in the 
NFL Frequency Coordination program.  I do field engineering for the National 
Football League, basically.  To use a ARS example, it's a rough equivalent of 
what repeater coordinators do, if repeater coordinators did their entire 
database over from scratch fifteen times a year or so, and had to contend 
with primary, secondary, and tertiary users of the same spectra.

I've missed one Atlanta home game in ten years, and you may have noticed me on 
the sidelines of Tennessee, Philadelphia, or Cincinnati, too, if you just 
happened to be scanning for bored engineers.

> You said in one of your latter post that you thanked everyone who responded
> to you and you gained some information/knowledge from those responses to
> you. So why do you select one particular response to respond to publically
> and defend yourself? 

Because, as you said, I felt it was important to thank those who provided 
enlightenment on the real reason for the point differential (fairness) and it 
was likewise important to answer those who seemed to have real questions in 
return, like you have.  It seemed to me that I shouldn't ask questions if I 
weren't willing to answer them in return.  The one response to which you 
refer ended up being a misunderstanding, and there's no ill will on either 
side.  I've conversed with the gentleman at length in private email, he's a 
good guy by my lights.  I believe he originally thought I was going for the 
One Millionth CW Is Awful posting, and I think I've gotten him to understand 
that this wasn't the case at all.

My first license was in 1992 in the Tech reshuffling, and for 15 or so years I 
listened to how I wasn't a "Real Ham" because of a rule change I knew nothing 
about.  Then in February, because I am an engineer, and the code barrier was 
removed, it was simple to upgrade to Extra, but the online Ham community was 
up in arms again against folks who were merely following the law after a rule 
change.  I have been totally confused by this just as I was in 1992, and 
confused by the torch-and-pitchfork position taken by the online Ham 
community when I had expected a sense of joy on behalf of the community that 
the Tech contingent (the largest by number, still today) would begin to 
spread out a bit and replace the SK folks, of which there were pages and 
pages in QST.  It doesn't take much to imagine that *all* of our positions 
are stronger if there are more folks who are licensed in the ARS.  Every 
voice in the choir is important, in other words.  

I largely ignored things said in 1992 because I was only a Tech after all, but 
now I'm an Extra and I don't think it behooves anyone with the highest class 
of license to be ignorant about any facet of the hobby that he/she should 
reasonably be expected to know, and so to this end I had decided to ask for 
the snippets that I don't possess.  You could largely expect Elmer 
functionality from an Extra.  I always did, anyway.  It works this way in 
almost any organization or hobby with different levels, and I'd expect a 
Master Mason to know things an Entered Apprentice wouldn't know, to extend 
the analogy to another well known brotherhood.

It was never my intention to offend anybody, and I really do believe that 
everything that needs to be said about how awful and unfair the removal of 
the CW requirement was has been said at least 100 times over.  Nothing in any 
of my posts was a rehash of that tired argument, but I do think it's time 
that we begin to talk to each other minus the vitriol and at minimum provide 
a more welcoming atmosphere to folks who have upgraded, not all of whom are 
CBers but have real technical/engineering skillsets to bring to the table.  
We're going to know electrical engineering but we're not going to know, for 
example, why we're seemingly penalized in contests for not knowing Morse.  
Asking the question gained me the knowledge that it doesn't have anything to 
do with me at all, it's an effort to be fair to what is after all a slower 
comm protocol in terms of actual clock minutes.

When you look at systems like APRS and Telpac that have been implemented 
largely on VHF and places where real innovations in the hobby have occurred, 
much of it has been spearheaded by No Code Techs with engineering 
backgrounds.  We've gotta keep those people.  What might they be able to do 
for us on HF?  Riley Hollingsworth pointed out at Dayton that the vast 
majority of his actions go against Advanced and General licensees, not Techs.  
We need law-abiding, innovative, and involved folks to come in and stay, 
because they create the backbones of things we'll all use and they'll become 
the Elder Statesmen when we're gone.

The reflector exists for discussion and edification/education, and it was to 
this end that I sought to use it.  I was successful, because I got a big 
handful of good information.  Anything else is a matter of interpretation of 
writing style; if you found mine offensive, I can only apologize and point 
out that no slight was intended.  The general tone of the reflector has 
always been friendly in my view, and I came in peace as a friend who just 
didn't happen to know what was going on with this particular issue, and who 
was willing to learn.

I hope I have answered all your questions because that was my intent; if not, 
please resend.  Those of you to whom I have not responded personally, the 
note of thanks I sent was meant for you.

If it is not a breach of protocol, I'd like to publically thank Chaz/W4GKF for 
his willingness to sponsor me in joining the club on the basis of a few off 
the cuff reflector questions.  I appreciated that, and my application has 
been forwarded for review.

Jeff/KD4RBG