John,
Just one quick comment as an information security professional:
It is simply entirely impossible to authenticate packet users in any
practical way. I can't think of any scheme that would be practical. Are we
going to issue all packet users smartcards and make them buy smartcard
readers? Some authentication based on callsign/address in the FCC
database/postcard with password like LoTW??
73
Ted KT1V & security dude
At 07:20 AM 11/10/2004, John WA2GO wrote:
On the more serious side:
Forgive me if this question is ignorant - I have never set up a station to
use packet so I don't know anything about how it works, but... would it be
possible to somehow authenticate every single sender and receiver of
spots, in order to (a) require people to sign on with their real callsign,
and (b) be able to tell where they are? It seems to me that anybody who
signs on using a different callsign (i.e. impersonating someone) is doing
so because they don't want to get caught, which kind of implies that they
might be planning to do something "wrong", or something they are
embarrassed about.
I think there are some universal truths on this subject that we can all
agree on:
1) Packet will continue to be used. It is unrealistic to think of
"shutting it down" on a worldwide basis during a contest or otherwise.
2) Packet probably helps activity levels. Wost case, it has no effect. It
doesn't reduce activity levels.
3) Some contesters owe some of their contacts to the existence of packet.
Therefore, getting spotted increases your rates, because it adds contacts
to your log that would have otherwise not been there. (I can vouch for
this from experience being spotted, too.)
4) Making contacts on the radio is what makes contests fun. Endless
unanswered CQ'ing is not fun.
5) Making more more contacts makes contests more fun.
6) Busting through a pileup to work a rare one is fun.
7) Tuning the bands to find a rare one while operating casually can be
fun. But if you are operating casually during a contest, and you don't
have a lot of time available to dedicate to the contest, it can seem
unfruitful, or perhaps even frustrating because of the "needle in a
haystack" effect due to the sheer number of signals on the band. Packet
can help increase your fun factor by providing you with lots of pileups to
jump into, and an easy way to locate the rare ones you are looking for.
8) If you are operating a contest competitively, and you make use of spots
to locate stations you need to work, you are receiving assistance, and
your entry category must so indicate.
9) If you are receiving assistance during a contest, then the degree to
which you are aided by the assistance is proportional to the quality of
the assistance you receive. For example, you receive bad spots, it
probably has a negative effect. If you receive good spots, it probably
helps. If your station is fully automated, it helps more, because you can
get to the spots more quickly. Therefore, if you can spend more money to
automate your station, you can take better advantage of the assistance.
10) The point of having different entry categories in contests is to
create a level playing field within each category, to the extent that is
practical. (Obviously, geography, available real estate, zoning
regulations, etc., will favor some stations over others. But it is not
practical to create a separate category for each individual station. It's
always going to be a compromise, except in a controlled situation such as
WRTC.)
Now here is where we stray into the debatable points. I don't think each
operator would answer (true or false) the same way to each of these statements:
- The point of a contest is to have fun.
- The point of a contest is to win.
- Winning is fun (if this is true, does it render the first two synonymous?)
- Competing is fun, regardless of results
- Losing to a cheater does not reduce the amount of fun
- Winning is satisfying, but only if it was done fairly
When one station has an advantage over another station, as long as the
advantage is obvious and publicly known, it can be accounted for when
evaluating scores. For example, it's obvious that a guy in Connecticut
will have a better 40M European run than a guy in Arizona. Even if the guy
in AZ is in the same entry category, he knows about his disadvantage, and
he will factor that in when comparing his score. Same goes for a guy with
stacked monobanders vs. a guy with a single tribander.
But if two stations are both in CT, and station B uses packet spots while
station A does not, and both enter as unassisted, then we don't have a
fair contest. This is what is called cheating. If station B has a higher
score, then did station B win? It depends on how they each answer the
true/false questions above. But the fact remains that only one of them
will get the plaque and only one of them will appear at the top of the
results list. I think most of us know the real answer on this one.
When it comes to packet (or any other differentiator, for that matter,
such as output power or number of simultaneous transmitters), I have only
one request: Honest, truthful entries, and full disclosure of the
advantages of one station over another. I am currently devising a means of
adding a two character indicator to a score that will fully disclose the
degree of automation used by a station in a contest, whether assisted or
unassisted. (Let's face it, even a memory keyer or a DVK is a form of
automation). It won't have to be used to create new categories, but it
will at least allow stations to make comparisons between themselves and
others, and allow for differences in score based on those relative
advantages/disadvantages that aren't reflected in their entry category.
Stay tuned for more on that later...
At the end of the day, there is another universal truth:
Some day, we are each going to die. And at that point, none of this will
have mattered anyway. So it probably comes back around to each person's
individual definition of fun as being the only thing that does matter.
Because if we aren't going to have fun while we're here, then why bother
sticking around, right??! Since different people can have different
definitions of fun, we will have to all learn to play nicely in the
sandbox together. Having (and following) rules is the way mature societies
accomplish this.
And on the less serious side:
1) I think EI5DI's idea is the best idea I have ever heard on this topic.
2) My dog's name is Spot. If I call him into the room during a contest,
do I need to claim Assisted?
73,
John
WA2GO
_______________________________________________
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
|