Re: [CQ-Contest] Contest Cheating

[Bill Tippett <btippett@alum.mit.edu>]

KI9A wrote:
>Enemy #1:  The unassisted op who has the cluster running in the background.
Can this be enforced? Not really. It can be exposed however, maybe bringing
shame on the offender. This is a threat to us who play by the rules, in a big
way.

>This crap about packet is getting old, there is no way to regulate it, & we
may as well make it legal for all classes to use, it isn't going away guys!

        I disagree completely.  I've had first-hand experience with one 
competitor
who regularly turned in 10m multipliers consistent with the top multi-multi's
over the past few years.  Has it helped him?  Possibly, but he has never even
come close to my total score, mainly because I out-QSO him by significant 
numbers.
My conclusion is that chasing Packet mults is a distraction which hurts him 
more
than it is helping.  When the band is wide-open (1130-1800) I concentrate on
running as fast as I can.  Good frequencies are difficult to hold even when you
are TOTALLY focused on running.  I cannot imagine trying to run at maximum 
rates
while also trying to chase mults...I'm sure I would lose my frequency in a
heartbeat if I tried this, and then would waste too much time trying to find
another good run frequency.  When the band will NOT support high rates, I feel
I can S&P about as effectively as looking at a Packet screen...maybe more
so, as W0YK observed.  BTW, my comments also apply to multi-multi situations
with 2 operators per band.  When conditions support high rates, it makes no
sense to interrupt the run station chasing mults that will (a) likely be there
later or on the 2nd day or (b) will likely call you while you are running.  It
takes real skill and judgement to know when to appropriately interrupt a run
operator and I'll wager most guys do not have the knowledge and skill to do 
this.
One reason I gave up multi-multi operating is that I never liked arguing with
guys who wanted to interrupt running for something that would have been worked
later anyway.

        Another data point to support my case.  Most (not all) SOABHP(A) 
scores
are well below unassisted scores.  Granted, antenna hardware is not usually
as great in the assisted class, but even taking that into account it seems that
Packet is a distraction for 99% of the guys who don't know how to use it as
effectively as the very few talented "K3WW class" assisted ops.  BTW, another
data point is N2RM's experience in turning off Packet a few years ago.

        It would be fun to see what would happen if SOABHP and SOABHP(A) were
merged for one trial contest.  I predict that most scores would go down, 
not up.
Whoever coined the term "Single Op Distracted Class" got it right!

                                                        73,  Bill  W4ZV



---------------------------------------------------------------
    The world's top contesters battle it out in Finland!
THE OFFICIAL FILM of WRTC 2002 now on professional DVD and VHS!
       http://home1.pacific.net.sg/~jamesb/
---------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest