[VHFcontesting] Assisted Classes

Wed Feb 17 13:31:09 PST 2010

Very well said, Tom. Excellent post, thanks.
Bill W5WVO

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Tom Holmes, N8ZM" <tholmes at woh.rr.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 6:08 PM
To: "'Les Rayburn'" <les at highnoonfilm.com>; "'John Geiger'" 
<aa5jg at yahoo.com>; <vhfcontesting at contesting.com>; "'R Johnson'" 
<k1vu at tmlp.com>
Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] Assisted Classes

> HI guys...
>
> Been following this discussion for a while, and I appreciate all of the
> viewpoints presented. There are some aspects of the situation that don't
> bother me too much, and others that, sadly, are just a reflection of a 
> lack
> of gentlemanly behavior (with apologies to any YL's here, but I'm sure you
> understand my meaning).
>
> I've been involved in VHF contesting now for over 35 years, pretty much to
> the exclusion of other aspects of the hobby, and almost always with a
> multi-operator group. When I first became involved, it was with a group 
> that
> had a highly competitive relationship with the group down the road. There
> were many stories told of amplifiers well over the FCC's limit ( and not 
> by
> "just a little"), noise-making jamming devices left close-by the other
> team's station, and plenty of 'rubber-pencil' accusations. This was mostly
> before I became involved with them, although I did see a couple of those
> amplifiers in use, albeit within the legal limit at the time, 2 kW PEP
> input. My point being that a lot of this 'cheating' stuff isn't a
> particularly a new thing. There are simply more and subtler ways to do it
> now.
>
> As I said, the sad part is that we seem to have lost, if we ever had had 
> it,
> the notion of what constitutes fair play vs. doing everything possible 
> that
> is either not specifically prohibited in the rules or difficult to police.
> I've said before that it seems like winning a piece of paper to hang on 
> your
> wall does, for some people, justify behavior that is simply best described
> as dishonest.
>
> On the other hand, much of the recent discussion here seems to be largely
> sour grapes because someone else thought of a trick and you didn't, or 
> chose
> not to go there. Let's face it: we are all participating in this sport
> because we get some enjoyment out of it. Anyone who is getting an ulcer or
> high blood pressure over it needs to seek help soon. It's your hobby, not
> your career. It's fine to take it seriously from the standpoint of wanting
> to do your best, but that isn't the same as having to be the best.
>
> The group I contest with now is about a half dozen experienced VHF
> contesters who enjoy working together to get the station working well and
> the challenge of improving our scores year over year. We take it seriously
> enough to have some heated arguments about which equipment changes will be
> the best for us, and how to prioritize our work list. We have succeeded in
> winning our section in limited multi-op most of the time, and in placing 
> in
> the top ten with reasonable consistency. Sure, we'd like to do better, and
> we keep working at it, because it's fun and interesting for us.
>
> Like all of you, we have our limitations. We don't have a big bankroll to
> fund equipment, or a lot of free time to work on all the projects we have 
> in
> mind. Our contest site is out in the boonies a bit, and it has only been 
> in
> the last couple of years that we could even use our cell phones without
> having to climb 40 feet up the tower to get coverage. We still do not have
> internet access of any sort available (there's that money issue again). So
> the whole discussion about spotting is at once both meaningless and
> disheartening as we realize that we are now at another competitive
> disadvantage.
>
> It has become a bit of a ritual for us to look at the published contest
> results and see how we stacked up in points. Usually, the overall winners
> will have 5 times the points we do, so the ritual question sounds like a
> line from the Butch/Sundance movie:  " Who are those guys?". Or more like,
> how do those guys make so many more points than we do? Maybe it's 
> spotting.
> Maybe it's staying up all night to work the digital modes and guys they 
> have
> skeds with. Maybe it's working a lot of local FM stations. Maybe it is
> simply that they have a better location, or less noise, or more operators
> pounding away 24/7. We don't know if any of those theories are valid, and 
> it
> doesn't really matter. We had fun! And it is not unusual for several local
> single op stations to score more points than we did! How humbling is 
> that?!
>
> We look at what went well, and what didn't. We don't worry too much about
> how those other guys might have bent the rules to win. We probably aren't
> 100% pure either, but we like to think that whatever bending we did was
> accidental and not chronic.
>
> So what's my point?  Do things like grid circling and spotting and other
> such 'cheats' bother me. Yes, a little bit, when they represent a sort of
> exclusive advantage that is not available to me and most others. But then
> again, they don't bother me any more than using a parrot to call CQ 
> Contest
> incessantly, or computer logging/duping, or a machine to send and receive 
> CW
> because my skills aren't up to the task. At one time, those were also
> considered unfair advantages, but are now fairly common and accepted.
> Technology will always advance to provide new capabilities, and hams will
> find ways to exploit those, especially in contesting where there are
> bragging rights at stake. It seems to me that a totally fair fight could
> only end in a draw anyway.
>
> The rules will never keep up with technology, or our ability to innovate 
> new
> advantages. But these innovations ought to stay within the rules, and 
> maybe
> the rules shouldn't try to stifle creativity too much in an effort to 
> create
> that fictional level playing field. I'm OK with that sort of 'cheating'.
> Now, those guys 35 years ago with the big amps and jammers? THAT was
> cheating!
>
> So let's strive for rules that at least provide some fairness in terms of
> competing against other stations of more or less comparable capability, 
> but
> don't go overboard with it. High power and low power. Fixed and mobile.
> Single op and multi-op. Rules that spell out the minimum requirements for 
> a
> valid QSO. And maybe some major consequences (I'm ruling out the death
> penalty here) for cheating that truly is a rules violation, but not for
> innovation. There is inherent in this, though, the phenomenon of 
> escalation,
> as everyone tries to keep up.
>
> It takes character to win without cheating, and more of it to not win
> (notice I didn't say lose) without crying about it.
>
> So how about we get back to talking about how to improve all of our scores
> by working together on innovations, and about how to attract more newbie's
> to this facet of ham radio.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Tom Holmes, N8ZM
> Tipp City, OH
> EM79xx
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: vhfcontesting-bounces at contesting.com
> [mailto:vhfcontesting-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Les Rayburn
> Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 1:20 AM
> To: John Geiger; vhfcontesting at contesting.com; R Johnson
> Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] Assisted Classes
>
> John,
>
> I certainly follow your logic on this point. True enough that it's 
> difficult
>
> for the ARRL to police some of these limitations, but I think the ones you
> listed would quickly become self-evident.
>
> For example, if an operator is running 1KW on 2 Meters and claiming to be
> "low power", he won't fool many of his fellow competitors. Likewise, a
> multi-op station (even one running CW or digital modes) would become 
> obvious
>
> too.
>
> Spotting is much more difficult to detect. Let's say that someone 
> operating
> in the "Single Operator Low Power" category decides to monitor the 
> Internet
> clusters during the June contest. He doesn't post any spots, so is
> completely, 100% undetectable. But using the network, he manages to snag
> five or six more multipliers on six meters than his nearest competitor in
> his section. He wins the section, while his honest competitor finishes 
> 2nd.
>
> Beyond all that, what I dislike is that eliminating spotting results in
> fewer contacts per contest. Period. Given the very real differences 
> between
> VHF and HF contesting, I think we should do everything we can to make more
> contacts possible. Assistance accomplishes that, and I think would be a
> healthy change for VHF.
>
> 73,
>
> Les Rayburn, N1LF
> EM63nf
>
>
>
> Les Rayburn, Director
> High Noon Film
> 100 Centerview Drive Suite 111
> Birmingham, AL 35216-3748
> 205.824.8930
> 205.824.8960 FAX
> 205.253.4867 CELL
> http://www.highnoonfilm.com
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> From: "John Geiger" <aa5jg at yahoo.com>
> Sent: Monday, February 15, 2010 8:46 PM
> To: "Les Rayburn" <les at highnoonfilm.com>; <vhfcontesting at contesting.com>; 
> "R
>
> Johnson" <k1vu at tmlp.com>
> Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] Assisted Classes
>
>> Following this logic, then, shouldn't we just eliminate all power
>> categories from contests, as the ARRL really can't policy how much power
>> anyone is running?  Probably need to eliminate the single op/multiop
>> distinction also, since it is always possible that you could get a little
>> late night help that isn't reported on the summary sheet.  I guess the
>> only classes we would need for VHF contesting would be limited (4 bands 
>> or
>
>> less) and unlimited (as many bands as you want).
>>
>> 73s John AA5JG
>>
>> --- On Sun, 2/14/10, R Johnson <k1vu at tmlp.com> wrote:
>>
>>> From: R Johnson <k1vu at tmlp.com>
>>> Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] Assisted Classes
>>> To: "Les Rayburn" <les at highnoonfilm.com>, vhfcontesting at contesting.com
>>> Date: Sunday, February 14, 2010, 9:45 PM
>>> Well put Les !!!
>>> 73
>>> Bob, K1VU
>>>
>>> At 15:58 2/12/2010, Les Rayburn wrote:
>>> >It reminds me of Oppenheimer's analogy about the Atomic
>>> Age. The "genie is out of the bottle". Web clusters,
>>> spotting networks, Twitter updates, etc. are here and
>>> nothing will change that.
>>> >
>>> >The ARRL can't police these sites, because they don't
>>> own them.
>>> >
>>> >It seems to be that retaining the notion of an
>>> "unassisted class" is wishful thinking. Many of us long for
>>> days gone by, filled with comic books, and pinball machines,
>>> and rotary telephones. But those days are gone. You can
>>> surround yourself with mementos of those days, or stubbornly
>>> refuse to use that new touch tone phone, but it won't bring
>>> that world back.
>>> >
>>> >In any contest, people can and will use whatever means
>>> are at their disposal to win. Yes, most of us will follow
>>> the rule and take pride in the fact that we didn't act
>>> dishonorably to win 5th place or crack the Top Ten. But
>>> there are others who "win at any cost" will always be the
>>> order of the day.
>>> >
>>> >The ARRL has to be realistic about their ability to
>>> enforce the rules of any contest, and try to make it as fair
>>> as possible for everyone involved. It's clear that they
>>> cannot effectively enforce many of the rules that involve
>>> the use of spotting networks. So why not just admit that
>>> Genie is out of the bottle. Allow assistance in the form of
>>> spotting networks, and move on.
>>> >
>>> >This levels the playing field, and operators add
>>> another tool to their shack. In the end, the best operators
>>> will still prevail, as they usually do. Yes, it changes the
>>> game--and we'll mourn the passing of a simpler time, when a
>>> operator could sit alone in a room, disconnected from the
>>> outside world save for their radio.
>>> >
>>> >But life and technology marches on.
>>> >
>>> >73,
>>> >
>>> >Les Rayburn, N1LF
>>> >EM63nf
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >Les Rayburn, Director
>>> >High Noon Film
>>> >100 Centerview Drive Suite 111
>>> >Birmingham, AL 35216-3748
>>> >205.824.8930
>>> >205.824.8960 FAX
>>> >205.253.4867 CELL
>>> >http://www.highnoonfilm.com
>>> >_______________________________________________
>>> >VHFcontesting mailing list
>>> >VHFcontesting at contesting.com
>>> >http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> VHFcontesting mailing list
>>> VHFcontesting at contesting.com
>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2690 - Release Date: 02/15/10
>> 13:35:00
>>
> _______________________________________________
> VHFcontesting mailing list
> VHFcontesting at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> VHFcontesting mailing list
> VHFcontesting at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
> 