K2WK writes:
> The decision in Europe to do away with the distiction in the Worked
> All Europe contest (and others) regardless of its motives, has proven
> that packet doesn't make all that much difference for the true
> competitor.
It has proven nothing of the sort. In the year when DARC first allowed packet,
not everyone learned of the decision. The packet-assisted scores were way
ahead of the rest.
I'm very disturbed by the argument that because packet cheating may be
difficult to detect, we should change the rules for everyone so that packet
is allowed. I think with careful use of a CD-Rom callsign database and use
of master.dta, I could inflate my score by up to about 10% and not be
detected in many contests. Or, even easier, I could just log those rare
multipliers without bothering to fight through the pileup and actually make
the contact. Should we change the rules so this is ok as well? By proposing
to get rid of the unassisted category you are spoiling it for the vast
majority of us who do not cheat, and giving in to the very few who are
tempted.
A couple of years ago when I was chairman of the RSGB HF Contests Committee
we had an allegation that the leader (on claimed scores) had used packet. I
examined that log and the second-placed log carefully, and checked back
against a listing of all the spots from the packet network. The leading
station's log showed a strong correlation. If he did not already have the
spotted call in the bag, he got it within ten minutes (usually much less)
of the spot appearing. The other station appeared to be in a different
contest! There was no correlation at all. In Europe, use of packet can
make a big difference. I wrote to the leader expressing my strong suspicion
and he withdrew his log. There was recently a discussion on the UK packet
cluster network prompted by W6GO's article and overwhelmingly, the view was
not to give in to the packet cheats. Some of the hardened types may be immune
to such peer pressure but they are very few and I object strongly to their
actions leading to any suggestion of the removal of the unassisted category.
Dave G4BUO
>From Robert Wood <w5robert@blkbox.COM> Thu Sep 22 05:00:48 1994
From: Robert Wood <w5robert@blkbox.COM> (Robert Wood)
Subject: CQ WW Contest Handbook
Message-ID: <9409212300.aa14098@blkbox.COM>
Ken,
The big question on the CQ WW handbook and the statistics and records,etc.
Does it include the scores (etc.) of those that were mis-published or
missed in the annual CQ publication??
I'm saying this knowing that ANY publication will miss a few once
and awhile. It would be nice that these "corrections" show up in this
handbook (if they affect that year's standings, etc.) It is difficult
even if you get a "updated" certificate on a contest, as if you
check the monthly mag and it wasn't there, folks wonder about your
printing press. Congrads to K3est for a fine publication on the
CONTEST.
--
73
Robert Wood
WB5CRG
w5robert@blkbox.com (blkbox is NOT blackbox, inc.!)
w5robert@blkbox.com@menudo.uh.edu
>From Fred Hopengarten" <k1vr@k1vr.jjm.com Thu Sep 22 09:01:46 1994
From: Fred Hopengarten" <k1vr@k1vr.jjm.com (Fred Hopengarten)
Subject: ZZ Top M/M
Message-ID: <2e8139ef.k1vr@k1vr.jjm.com>
On Wed, 21 Sep 1994 08:10:07 -0600 (MDT), "Walton L. Stinson"
<wstinson@csn.org> wrote:
> Was at a ZZ Top concert the other night. Their tour is called
> "Antenna" World Tour. Their T shirt merchandise has a graphic
> of an adobe style shack with wires running out to
> what a big tower. On stage, they have oversized open-wire
> feeders running up to the rigging above the stage.
>
Save that ZZ Top graphic and distribute it to each ARRL
Volunteer Counsel. Proof positive that antennas are not
ugly, but rather an "architectural feature." Would be good
as Appendix A.
--
Fred Hopengarten K1VR
Six Willarch Road * Lincoln, MA 01773-5105
home + office telephone: 617/259-0088 (FAX on demand)
internet: k1vr@k1vr.jjm.com
"Big antennas, high in the sky, are better than small ones, low."
|