Is it time?
The real question is can any new rules be enforced. ZL2HAM could create
a Contest mode but do we know who is using it? We have packet but we
don't know who is really using it. Heck in a CW contest we have found
that maybe the op we think is running really isn't. Power? Who is doing
it right and who is doing it wrong?
We can create more rules but the problem to me is that without honesty
and integrity among the group we have nothing. We hear more about
cheating now than we ever did but we now live in a society where new
travels instantly. Most everyone can be in the know if they want to. I
think cheating has been going on for a long long time and will continue,
rules or otherwise.
There are always going to be bad guys. Bad guys don't follow rules in
contests nor the laws of the land no matter how many laws or rules there
are.
If the goal is to better define assisted vs unassisted then I think yes
we are way over due in how we look at things.
We also have to acknowledge what technologies exists, what is coming.
We have to write rules that can be enforced.
What I believe will happen some day soon and we are already seeing this
is that there will be single op and multi op. There will be no assisted
or unassisted.
Mike W0MU
On 11/27/2013 1:21 PM, Pete Smith N4ZR wrote:
After 5 years of advocating that any use of CW Skimmer should
constitute "assistance", I have changed my mind about where the line
should be drawn between Assisted/Unlimited and Unassisted, when it
comes to technology.
There are at least two reasons for this:
1. Elaborate attempts to define "assistance" in terms of software
capabilities are doomed to be almost instantly obsolete. Take ZL2HAM's
ViewProp as an example. He could easily add a "contest mode" that
would prevent the collection of callsigns, frequencies and
multipliers, while still providing charts of when and which bands are
open to which zones or continents. That would arguably make it legally
consistent with the 2013 CQWW definition of "unassisted." But then,
what about next year?
2. Developments over the last 5 years have made CW Skimmer much less a
game-changer than other developments, such as the worldwide
availability of the Reverse Beacon Network. On November 23, the most
prolific individual CW Skimmer on the RBN in Europe (ES5PC) made
67,121 spots. The most prolific in North America was WZ7I, with
64,106. Meanwhile, the RBN forwarded 2,815,948 spots!
Why is this important? Because no single Skimmer can match the RBN
for its contribution to a station's score. Quality filters such as
the CT1BOH/AB5K algorithm depend on multiple spots of the same station
for their accuracy. Moreover, if you are in the contest, your Skimmer
cannot be as capable as a station like WZ7I- both W3LPL and K3LR's
Skimmers, for example, only delivered 50-70percent as many spots as
the best dedicated Skimmer.
3. The cost of local CW Skimmer capability is minimal. While some
early efforts were over the top, you can now put a bandswitching
Skimmer on the air for under $200 - trivial compared to other
expenditures that people make for unassisted technology every day
For these reasons, I agree with Rick that the time has come for a
definition based on the station's boundary. However, I think the
general rule should be "No information from beyond the station
boundary, regardless ofmode of reception." Specific exceptions could
be added, such as one for "generalized propagation information, such
as WWV solar indices".
Is it time?
73, Pete N4ZR
Check out the Reverse Beacon Network at
http://reversebeacon.net,
blog at reversebeacon.blogspot.com.
For spots, please go to your favorite
ARC V6 or VE7CC DX cluster node.
On 11/24/2013 3:56 PM, Jack Haverty. wrote:
I agree with Rick - the definitions of "assisted" or "unassisted"
should be
in terms of communications methods used across your station's boundary
circle.
"Assisted" used to mean being helped by another living human. With
computers, that doesn't happen nearly as much anymore. Trying to draw
clear lines around various pieces of ill-defined and evolving
technology is
probably impossible.
However, it is fairly easy to draw a line around a station, and
determine
what kinds of communications signals are crossing it. So, "unassisted"
could mean "nothing but amateur radio crosses that line". Use of any
other communications means, for any purpose, to interact with anything
across that line makes you "assisted". Internet or carrier pigeon or
signal flags - it's all assistance, using some communications mechanism
other than amateur radio to assist our amateur radio communications.
If you want to include "remote operation", simply define the way you
draw
the line around a station to permit that -- the boundary includes the
radio
location as well as the operator location, and a very narrow pipe
connecting the two, and only the two, by whatever means you like.
Note that this would permit Unassisted stations to use technology
such as
spotting networks - but only if they were implemented using only amateur
radio.
Similarly, perhaps teams of geographically separated operators could
interact as a multi-multi entry, using only amateur radio
communications to
coordinate their activities.
Just some thoughts for the annual debate...
73,
/Jack de K3FIV
On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 9:48 PM, Rick Kiessig<kiessig@gmail.com> wrote:
While I agree that using ViewProp in its current form would make
someone
assisted, I also think it would help everyone if the contest rules were
less
ambiguous.
Exactly what is meant by "providing call signs" and "multiplier
identification" and "along with frequency information"? Concrete
examples
of
what's allowed and what's not would be very helpful.
Especially with increasing use of new and innovative forms of
cheating (not
always purposeful), I would like to suggest a new approach for next
season.
Rather than focusing on specific technologies, such as Skimmer or
ViewProp,
which will always be a moving target, why not draw the line between
assisted
and unassisted in a very clear, unambiguous place:
Unassisted means no connections to the outside world, and no radio or
contest related help from someone there in person. No Internet,
phone, HT,
satellite, or anything similar. Any such devices must be unplugged,
turned
off, or definitively not accessible to participants for the entire
duration
of the contest.
Assisted allows Internet access.
This would allow unassisted contesters to use any technology they wish,
provided it runs entirely at their location. That might be a local
Skimmer
or other decoding software, or something new like ViewProp, provided it
didn't connect to the Internet.
This would also put the focus back on what you can build and
integrate at
your site. Tinkering is a big part of the hobby for many of us, and
that
should include software.
If adopted exactly as above, this would also put remote operations
automatically into the assisted category.
I realize there is still a strong sentiment for "a boy and his
radio" type
contesting on the unassisted side. Unfortunately, with technology
the way
it
is now, that line is hard to draw, and pretty much impossible to
enforce.
BTW, one reason this is an issue for me (other than as the author of
ViewProp), is that the number of people who compete as assisted in this
part
of the world is relatively small compared to unassisted -- and
competing
against very small group turns a contest into something else entirely.
73, Rick ZL2HAM / ZM1G
-----Original Message-----
From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On
Behalf Of
Chris Hurlbut
Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 3:29 PM
To: Ken Widelitz
Cc:cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Does Using ViewProp Make You Assisted
Of course it makes you assisted.
It provides "multiplier identification" as far as I'm concerned.
What a
great way to keep an eye on 10m during marginal conditions! When are
the
single ops in the Caribbean firing up on 160? Easy, just look at
the map!
No frequency information required. You know it's open, you will
find them.
1000 examples would be easy to come up with, but a debate is not
required
in
this case.
-Chris KL9A
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 9:01 PM, Ken Widelitz<widelitz@gte.net> wrote:
I've just downloaded and started to plan with ViewProp. What a
neat
tool!
If I don't display the path grid which shows call signs, does
displaying the
DX Atlas map that ViewProp creates make me assisted?
Per CQWW rule VIII 2. QSO alerting assistance: The use of any
technology or
other source that provides call sign or multiplier identification
along with
frequency information to the operator.
I think viewing the DX Atlas map is NOT assistance per rule VIII,
since it
doesn't show call signs and frequencies. The ViewProp grid does
not
tie into
my band maps, so I can't see the calls and frequencies there
either.
73, Ken, K6LA / VY2TT
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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
|