This discussion puts me in mind of a quote from the religion of Bokononism.
“Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds
himself no wiser than before," Bokonon tells us. "He is full of murderous
resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance
the hard way.”
73, de Hans, KØHB
“Just a Boy and his Radio”
________________________________
From: CQ-Contest <cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com> on behalf of robert
<wa1fcn@charter.net>
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2019 8:08 AM
To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Impact of FT* Modes on DXpeditions
GM Matts/Yuri
I agree with you about the ARRL's DXCC credit system.
A mistake for sure. As a life long low power operator it has
taken me 54 years to reach 40 meter DXCC of 280. By allowing
FT8 credits mixed in with every thing I foresee in the near
future,
many achieving this in 10 years or less of effort. At the
next sun spot
cycle peak high DXCC totals on 10, 12, and 15 will be
meaningless. I
know of hams who no longer take part in DXCC for just this reason.
FT8 credit for DXCC is fine, but keep it separated from single
band/mixed
mode totals.
74 BoB WA1FCN
On 8/15/2019 1:30 AM, Mats Strandberg wrote:
> I tend to agree with Yury.
>
> CY9 was much more balanced between modes, than the 3D2 (or least that was
> my perception).
>
> It might be so that at the time of John’s (GD) participation in KP5 and
> KP1, that there was no ambition to maximize the revenue through donations
> (before, during and after the expedition). I don’t question that.
>
> However, since FT8 appeared as an equal mode for DXCC (along with CW,SSB
> and RTTY), it definitely has changed some expeditions into becoming
> automated QSO/QSL-creating machines...
>
> John, during KP1/KP5, the FT modes were not available, so comparison might
> not be fully relevant.
>
> It is maybe good that FT8 will bring new “DXers” to the table, but the
> appearance of this dull mode... has forever changed the feeling of “being
> on the other side of the expedition”, and most likely also, being an
> operator of that expedition as well.
>
> I question myself, what is the pleasure of being that rare DX, giving out
> the ATNOs and the new band points, when the reality is that NO operator
> skills are required from me to make those “contacts” happen!
>
> Before, good DX-expeditions we’re separated by less good ones, because of
> operator skills. How wonderful was it not to listen to great operators,
> handling thousand of callers, to maximize the number of contacts and happy
> DXers on the other side?
>
> Those days were interesting and a memory of our past. The new FT8 euphoria
> has forever changed the perception of DX-big, thanks to ARRL’s greed for
> award revenue ;(
>
> And, what we now see is the result of the wrong decision to equalize FTx,
> JT and other artificial modes, with RTTY, SSB and CW, and accept them for
> DXCC Mixed.
>
> The correct way would have been to create FT/JT DXCC separate from Classic
> DXCC...
>
> DXCC as we all knew it, has been hurt tremendously by ARRL unthoughtful
> decision to accept FT/JT in Mixed!
>
> 73 de RM2D (Mats)
>
> On Thu, 15 Aug 2019 at 05:14, John Crovelli <w2gd@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I want to take a moment to dispel the notion suggested by Yuri that
>> DXpedition operating strategy is all about financial considerations. It
>> simply isn't for well planned operations.
>>
>> It is the intent of virtually every DXpedition to provide an opportunity
>> for those running 100 watts or more to work an ATNO. DXpeditions teams are
>> constantly considering ways to reach the broadest possible audience while
>> on site.
>>
>> The implication that operating strategy and mode selection is all about
>> post operation donations (to cover costs) is just not true. Well organized
>> teams have these issues resolved well in advance.
>>
>> I've been on some large DXpeditions (KP5 and KP1 - both were top ten
>> world). Our operating teams NEVER set goals based upon donations, and in
>> fact, this issue was never even discussed since no one felt it to be
>> important. Again, financing issues were resolved well before we ever
>> departed for the islands.
>>
>> We did however (on a daily basis) take stock of propagation, probably of
>> openings, and how we were providing global coverage ... to prevent missing
>> opportunities to those regions traditionally most difficult. As a tool,
>> FT8 can be useful.
>>
>> FT8 modes are providing options not previously available and for the most
>> part now replaces RTTY activity. It is my expectation CW and SSB will
>> always be the main modes for DXpeditions.
>>
>> John, W2GD aka P40W/P44W
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: CQ-Contest <cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com> on behalf of Yuri <
>> ve3dz@rigexpert.net>
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 7, 2019 4:57 PM
>> To: 'Jeff Clarke' <ku8e@ku8e.com>; cq-contest@contesting.com <
>> cq-contest@contesting.com>
>> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] WW-Digi Contest -- Rule Clarification
>>
>>>>> Seems like the last two big Dxpeditions (CY9 and 3D2) are putting FT8
>> first before the traditional CW/SSB modes. I sure hope this isn't the
>> future of ham radio.
>>
>> I might not be politically correct, but why not to mention that one of the
>> all of the DXpeditions' goals is to try to maximize the overall QSO count
>> in order to get more donation? That's what hiding behind "best kept secret"
>> (that everybody knows) of F/H mode in FT8 in my opinion.
>> I'm not saying it's bad or good, but it's a fact.
>> Multi-channel streams need to be prohibited, otherwise it looks like
>> hypocrisy.
>> I still remember how the rules for M/S in the ARRL Contests were changed
>> under the pressure after PJ4G(?) team managed to have 2 stations on the
>> same band (even not at the same time).
>>
>> Yuri VE3DZ
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of
>> Jeff Clarke
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 7, 2019 10:51 AM
>> To: cq-contest@contesting.com
>> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] WW-Digi Contest -- Rule Clarification
>>
>> Didn't someone create a FT8 contest reflector? It would be nice to take
>> all these comments over there. Seems like FT8 is monopolizing the contest
>> reflector just like it is on the air.
>>
>> Seems like the last two big Dxpeditions (CY9 and 3D2) are putting FT8
>> first before the traditional CW/SSB modes. I sure hope this isn't the
>> future of ham radio.
>>
>> BTW I do operate some FT8 because I'm working on a the digital DXCC.
>> (because there is hardly any RTTY activity outside of contests) Now that
>> I've reached 100 countries I'm starting to get bored with it.
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|