Instead of banning the practice, which is a very creative approach to
winning IMO, embrace it and find a way to make it "fair".
Maybe identify a home state and apportion credit for other in state
operations differently if it is not your home state.
Don't discourage innovation. No rule is ever written that can
accommodate every possible angle or technology innovation.
Encouraging activity is the goal here.
The turnout for CQP feels like it was fantastic. We will see what the
data says.
How many of the hundreds of CA stations where remoted? I'd say a very,
very small percentage.
Also, TU for all the QSO's this weekend.
73,
Steve
W1SRD
On 10/4/2020 15:04, Stan Zawrotny wrote:
This is a topic that is currently being discussed by the State QSO Party
Group. We are seeing stations operating remotely as in-state operators in
several different state QSO parties so that they can make more contacts for
the State QSO Party Challenge. Some stations are teaming up - "I will let
you use my station for in-house in my state's QSO party if you will let me
use yours during your state's QSO party." Some are piling up the points by
operating in-state in 5-6 different QSO parties.
The SQP Group would prefer that the contest sponsors seek a solution to
this issue. It is obviously too late to prohibit the practice, but the
sponsors need to address the inequity that remote stations have in scoring.
I think the WWROF should take the lead and act promptly.
This is my personal opinion and should not be considered a position of the
SQP Group.
Stan Zawrotny, K4SBZ
Administrator, State QSO Party Group
__________
Stan, K4SBZ
On Sun, Oct 4, 2020 at 3:21 PM Paul O'Kane <pokane@ei5di.com> wrote:
Last month, W3LPL and K3LR announced that they had decided not to
compete in any multi-op category in the 2020 CQ WW contests.
http://lists.contesting.com/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2020-09/msg00036.html
They went on to say they "remain hopeful that science will allow our
teams to resume Multi Multi operations in 2021"
There are at least two ways in which science will permit this. The
first depends on the availability, and uptake, of effective vaccines
within the next 12 months. Right now, that's uncertain. The second is
that science, or rather technology, will help remote multi-op entries to
be competitive.
There are many positive aspects to remote contesting, including -
It gets more people on the air - meaning more QSOs and more contest
entries.
It saves the ops time and money - they don't have to travel to the
station.
It's safer - no close contact between operators, whether day or
night, over several days.
The RF is exactly the same, no matter where the operators are - so
what's not to like?
There are some disadvantages -
It's expensive, and technically challenging, to configure a station
for competitive remote entries, and particularly so for multi-op.
Latency can be a problem, especially for CW - though 5G may provide a
solution.
As those who work remotely know, team spirit can be affected - it's
"just not the same".
Regardless of these disadvantages, it's likely that multi-op contest
stations/owners generally are gearing up for remote operation - if only
to have the option in future.
So, it's all good then - or is it?
Not quite. We're in the early stages of what I call Distributed
Contesting, of which remote operation is an example. Until a few years
ago, it was a requirement in contest rules that all station equipment
had to be located within a given area. With the increasing take-up of
remote, "equipment" was changed, typically, to "all transmitters,
receivers, and antennas" - meaning, in practice, that not all station
equipment had to be located within a given area. In other words,
stations are becoming distributed.
Further, CQ WW 160 permits the use, for SO Assisted, of one "remote
receiver located within 100km of the main transmitter site". For a good
reason, of course - the rule is "designed to accommodate new technology,
and for those who experience high noise levels at the transmitting
site". This is an example of the increasing distribution of stations,
whether remote or otherwise. If follows that, since "high noise levels"
can apply to any band, and we all aware of increasing noise levels in
urban areas, there will be pressure to permit this concession more
generally.
There is, simultaneously, an inexorable trend towards SDRs - Software
Defined Radios. With faster communications technology and utilities,
there is less need for all software components of an SDR to be available
in one discrete location. If there's better processing power in "the
cloud", in terms of modes supported (especially new digital modes), or
filtering, or noise reduction - why not use it? This represents
distributed receivers, and they're on their way.
Remote operators are quick to point out the disadvantages, outlined
above, they have to live with. What they prefer not to be reminded
about is the opportunity value of remote capability. They can compete
in circumstances where others cannot even enter.
Neither do they like to be reminded that, at all times, they are
dependent on public utilities (internet, 4G, whatever) for their QSOs.
Further, they are simultaneously communicating over those same public
utilities - they require more than RF alone to have their QSOs. This is
easily demonstrated by asking them to disconnect from the utility, and
then see how many QSOs they have.
My point is that distributed-station operators, in order to realize
their not-insignificant opportunity to compete, are obliged to abandon
the communications-independence that until recently has been the
hallmark, the defining characteristic, of ham radio.
There's nothing wrong with distributed contesting - it's the preferred
option for many operators. But it is different from RF-all-the-way, and
evolving rapidly - driven partly by the constraints imposed upon us all
due to the pandemic. Could we have reached a tipping point? It seems
to me that this evolution is largely unregulated, with individual
contest sponsors doing their best to keep up with evolving technology as
it affects their particular events.
My question is - will WWROF (the World Wide Radio Operators Foundation)
help to regulate Distributed Contesting in terms of a general set of
recommendations, including categories, for contest rules - with
particular emphasis on the major events? The WWROF was created "by a
group of radio operators who saw a need for an independent organization
devoted to the skill and art of radio operating." Surely this is within
their remit, and isn't "now" the right time for them to act?
https://wwrof.org/
73,
Paul EI5DI
_______________________________________________
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
|