CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] World Wide Digi DX Contest Results.

To: "Paul O'Kane" <pokane@ei5di.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] World Wide Digi DX Contest Results.
From: "Glenn Wyant" <va3dx@sympatico.ca>
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2020 10:30:52 -0500
List-post: <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
Third class.....

Those former contesters who have grown tired
of  the on line bitching, complaining and accusations;
and now given up on contesting , reverting back to a
more simple and relaxing style of radio operation.

Glenn VA3DX

Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] World Wide Digi DX Contest Results.


It seems to me that VA3VF is sitting on the fence. It is clear that, in ham radio, there are two basic classes of contest operators, drivers and passengers. Drivers decode other transmissions themselves, and everyone else is a passenger. This is independent of mode.

Could there be room for for a third class - data-processing contesters? VA3VF implies there might be - I say no chance! When and if the FT craze dies out, there will be yet another "more-advanced data mode" to take its place and, once again, its users will be passengers. Sure, it will still be contesting of one kind or another - your machine competing with my machine.


73,
Paul EI5DI



On 12/01/2020 18:20, DXer wrote:
Hi Peter,

That's a valid concern, and the excerpt from the committee message you quoted should 'buy' all critics some time:

"For the FT mode it is not yet clear where the fault is..."

Read the preceding messages again, and you'll see that was not the issue.

The issue there, whether 'flowered' or not, was still FT-X is not hamradio, no skills, boring, unsophisticated users, etc.

As I said before, FT-X contesting is not likely to be my 'thing', but give it a chance, if you are concerned about contesting.

If you are still in 'mode wars' mood, give it a rest. Other 'experts' say the FT craze will die out in 3 years or so, let it happen on its own then. Natural death is one thing, 'premeditated murder' is another.

73 de Vince, VA3VF

On 2020-01-12 12:56, Peter Sundberg wrote:
But there is a major problem when the contest committee tell us that they had to waive the NIL penalty because otherwise a large number of stations would end up with a negative score.

Furthermore the committee states the following:

"In the legacy modes, the "fault" for a NIL is most always on the side that logged the QSO. For the FT mode it is not yet clear where the fault is, but in any case, the amount of NILs is abnormally high. Going forward, FT contesting needs to better define how QSO partners can reliably communicate whether a QSO is complete and should be logged. The responsibility resides both
with contest participants and FT contest software developers."

Yes Vince, a contest is a contest and the goal is the same. But when the operator is unable to decide whether a QSO should be logged or not, to me it that's a clear indication that automation has gone too far. Especially when the committee says that the amount of NILs is abnormally high.

The operator is "in the back seat" and certainly NOT up front driving. Now that's where there's clearly room for criticizing the concept.

73
Peter SM2CEW
_______________________________________________
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

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>