[UK-CONTEST] Chat rooms was May 2m Contest

[Paul_group]

Mark G4PCS wrote:
>>> or ask any serious VHF+ DX-er what they consider to be the important 
>>> tools of the trade. Really...
>>>
> 
> Paul 'IZR wrote:
> 
>> I shouldn't ask that question of all serious VHF+ DX-ers though as you 
>> might not get the answer you expect.
> 
> Fair enough Paul... almost any. The users list in KST is a
> nearly-complete who's-who, with a few rare exceptions such as yourself

He He - that makes a connection between me and serious dx-ers :-)

There are other more notable exceptions.. but I do take my VHF dxing
seriously. I don't *think* I'm a registered user as I haven't logged in 
to KST for maybe three or four years, but I did use it for a couple of 
years.

OK, I'm in a small minority, a life time of experience has taught me 
that that means I'm most likely in the wrong - but if you can be 
bothered read on and I'll try to explain why I feel this way.

> :) But when combined with use of the DX-cluster, I don't think anyone
> is missing? If they are, I admire their Zen!
> 

I do use the dx cluster during VHF contests for a few reasons, I use the 
received spots to predict paths and MUF and I send spots to try to 
promote activity for those living in the extremities.

But I think DX clusters are subtly different. Forgetting the dubious 
self spotting "work me work me" cries (which always remind me of the 
Donkey in Shrek) its slightly out of real time and thus isn't useful for
riding through qsb peaks and troughs, its also not possible to ask for 
fills where real time talk back allows for that even if that is done in 
a sub concious way. Phrases like "Keep going, pings and weak tropo here" 
are all ways of sustaining an attempt that would most likely be 
abandoned in a contest - isn't that outside of the spirit of a radio 
contest?



>> There is no doubt that making exact frequencies, locatorss and both 
>> calls available to both ends of a link in real time makes for more ... 
>> erm.. well lets call them QSO's.
> 
> See, this is the problem and will result in an inevitable cyclic
> discussion. Why the "erm" and the "lets call them"? 

To provoke a response as you well know :-)

But the point I'm failing to make is based on personal experience and 
observation. Examples like a request to try an 850Km flat band qso 
during IARU 144MHz that was clearly going to be a struggle - but the 
only bit the DL station needed to ask for as a repeat was the serial 
number, he got everything else in the first over, the serial took 20 
mins to get across to him.

Comments in KST like "he's asking for your report again" are hard to 
ignore even if you pretend you haven't seen them, its human nature to 
act on them. Even if that's only repeating the report a couple of extra 
times in the next over.

One last observation I *know* that DX skeds that I try which are at the 
edge of the limit of conditions or station setup stand as much chance of 
failing as success - from what I observed on KST, the failure rate was 
almost zero, for what I believe were some incredibly challenging qso's 
one of those examples now stands as a 4m country "first"

> Yes yes, I know that there are elements to contesting that should be
> "random" (and using KST, etc wouldn't preclude that), but the point is
> that KST is a well-respected, self-moderated tool used mostly by people
> who have a high degree of integrity when it comes to completing a
> radio-path QSO. 

OK - I never understand why I can easily reconcile uWave talkback but 
not real time talkback for contests (or dx ing for that matter) - I am 
the first to admit that it is probably illogical but I cannot help the 
feeling that KST makes QSO's too easy, Would that QSO have taken place 
without KST, if the answer is no, then I think that's probably what 
makes me feel uneasy.

The ironic thing is that its use would probably benefit
> the smaller contest stations far more than the leaders: I agree with
> John's earlier comment that, for a leading station (that "runs" at a
> reasonable rate), KST can be more of a hinderance than a help.
> 

I just wonder how everyone (we) managed without it :-)

here is just a thing to consider, I have a lot of time for Rays constant 
strive for more VHF activity and agree with 99.999% of what he says, 
apart from KST of course. We can see a decline in activity on VHF which 
KST isn't changing. Why? putting aside discussions about removing CW and 
access to HF etc.. my guess is that KST has not helped. Its adversely 
changed the way VHF dx-ing is done. No longer do the big guns hang out 
on .300 or .200 calling CQ and then working long haul stuff which had 
the spin off that smaller stns worked the tail end of the qso's, what 
happens now is that station A decides to work station B, they discuss 
and arrange all this in KST, pop up on some obscure frequency, swap 59 
reports and snuggle back into their chat room. Try tail ending one of 
these qso's and you stand about zero chance of a follow on call. That 
creates the illusion of zero activity. Since KST came along no one seems 
to call CQ any more.


> We all agree that sitting there saying "I've heard your roger-report
> you just need to listen for my rogers" is inappropriate, but if that
> were to happen the KST police (and there are plenty) would jump on it
> PDQ.
> 
>> Regardless of increased activity, that has no place in a contest.
> 
> I agree 100%, "that" has no place.... but it doesn't mean "don't use KST".

Well as I said I fully accept that I'm wrong - but it doesn't feel like it.

Regards Paul

-- 
73 de Paul GW8IZR IO73TI
http://www.gw8izr.com