Right, an unfortunate side effect preventing the use of
what is effectively a great idea but for the side effect.
Sure would have cut down on those busted spots...
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Notarius WN3VAW" <wn3vaw@fyi.net>
To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 10:20
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Dodgy spotting 'witch-hunt'
> So now the solution to stopping cluster cheats is to force everyone to use
> the cluster and to effectively discourage or ban those who don't from
> participating in the contest? In other words, to stop the cheats we ban
the
> operators who can not possible have been cheating?
>
> I was wrong before. THIS is the latest height in absurdity.
>
> 73, ron wn3vaw
>
> "There must be some mistake. The Pirates in first? QRM on my end,
> probably."
> --John W3ULS (and there's no QRM, either)
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Leigh S. Jones, KR6X" <kr6x@kr6x.com>
> To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Dodgy spotting 'witch-hunt'
>
> Bruce, I don't think that the intent was to bring the cluster system to
its
> knees. Hopefully there would be adequate preparation for this to be
> effective; heaven knows the internet itself will be quite able to stand
> up to the pressure -- it would only be the servers of the spotting
> networks themselves that would be heavily stressed.
>
> This would completely remove the "cheating" element from the self-
> spotting act, while at the same time it would increase the usefulness
> of the spotting system. Imagine -- the spotting networks would
> provide 100% coverage of all CQ's, spreading the impact of new
> spots to every CQ on the band... No more big packet pileups.
> Instantaneously updated bandmaps that are never out of date. No
> need for anyone to provide any spots of stations thay've just worked.
> Your own personal approach to filtering spots -- spots no longer
> filtered by your competitor!
>
> No, although there would be much more server traffic, the server
> traffic isn't the drawback to this idea. It would place a 100%
> requirement on all entrants (even those who are located in quite
> remote places where there is no internet service available at
> all) to connect to the internet and use computers to do all of their
> logging. It would put the Heathkit HW-8 and pencil gang
> completely out of business competitively, and force everyone to
> modern equipment and modern operating practices.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bruce B. Sawyer" <zf2nt@candw.ky>
> To: <va3uz@rac.ca>; <cq-contest@contesting.com>
> Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2002 10:57
> Subject: re: [CQ-Contest] Dodgy spotting 'witch-hunt'
>
>
> > >Then it will be a "spot sending and reading Contest" and I'll be
> definitely
> > >out of it.
> > >Still vote for shutting down all the clusters during major Contests.
> > >
> > >73 yuri (still VA3UZ)
> >
> > I still think the suggestion K5TR put out the other day (and credited
to
> > N5KO) is the best I've heard yet. Allow self-spotting, and encourage
> > EVERYBODY to put out a spot on themselves every time they hit the F1 key
> (or
> > RTN for TR). Then the cluster system would be so flooded with garbage
> that
> > it would be useless to anybody and everybody. We would never be able to
> > convince the packet guys to shut down voluntarily, but if enough of us
put
> > our heads together we could bring the worldwide cluster system to its
> knees!
> >
> > CU Dayton? de Bruce, ZF2NT
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > CQ-Contest mailing list
> > CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
|