Stan - yes, you understand exactly.
When I was a W3LPL op in the late 80s/early 90s I kinda liked the rule that
multi ops could not go home and work the multi using their own calls. I
seriously doubt that could have ever swung any contest results ever but it felt
right. Same with the no skeds rule. Same with old rule against self spotting.
Encouraging turning on Spot All S&P QSOs is the standard practice I've seen,
not "Just Spot Club Members" but if self spotting is seen as a way for smaller
clubs, or DXpeditions from smaller clubs, to equalize, great.
As I said, I'm not looking to change the decision to impact what others want to
do, just want the tools to do what I'd like to do.
73 John K3TN
-----Original Message-----
From: Stan Stockton <wa5rtg@gmail.com>
To: jpescatore@aol.com
Cc: cq-contest@contesting.com <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Sent: Thu, Mar 9, 2023 10:32 am
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Self Spotting
John,
I am trying to understand. You want to use the spotting network but only want
to see spots for Station 2 that are generated by someone other than Station 2?
In both cases you are using information that comes from a source other than
amateur means to know the callsign and the frequency for Station 2. I guess
your choices are to operate without assistance or use what shows up. I would
not differentiate between K3TN being spotted by a dozen different PVRC members
and a N7___ who was not a member of a club and had no spots other than the one
he created for himself if I chose to operated in the assisted category using
callsign and frequency information provided by others through a non-amateur
means of delivery.
I operated at K4VX several times and although we were in the M/M category, it
was not allowed by Lew to use the spotting information that would have been
readily available. It was more exciting when you found a double multiplier but
was certainly not a competitive way to operate in the M/M category.
Historically operators have either been for or against spotting assistance.
Yours is a new one, if I understand correctly, where you are OK with using
spotting assistance as long as the station does not spot itself in absence of
friends who will.
73...Stan, K5GO
On Thu, Mar 9, 2023 at 8:55 AM <jpescatore@aol.com> wrote:
Hi, Stan - In the big club I'm in (PVRC) I'm in the minority for not liking
self spotting and I'm not even trying to change the decision to allow it. I'm
just looking for a way not to take advantage of it because it doesn't feel
right to me. If the AR cluster filter syntax allowed me to simply filter out
CALL=SPOTTER I'd just do that, but it doesn't and W9PA says no chance of that
happening soon.
History files don't feel right to me, either - so I don't use them. To be
honest, I kinda enjoy that when I'm operating a VA station remotely and am JOHN
VA vs. JOHN MD that the number of ops who bust my exchange jumps 3x! K3ZO used
to quote Lenny W3GRF and say "It is a listening contest just as much, if not
more, than a sending contest..." Of course, Fred never used filters, either...
So, I voiced my opinion to the CAC, self spotting was approved - no problem.
Just looking for some tools to differentiate, just the way if I was
anti-Internet (I'm not) I can choose to filter out non-human spots.
73 John K3TN
-----Original Message-----
From: Stan Stockton <wa5rtg@gmail.com>
To: jpescatore@aol.com
Cc: cq-contest@contesting.com <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Sent: Thu, Mar 9, 2023 9:32 am
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Self Spotting
John,
Here is my take on self spotting. On CW you have a perfectly fair situation.
If you can generate a signal that can be heard by a Skimmer station you will be
spotted automatically by the RBN. There is no reason for your friends to spot
you or for you to spot yourself. It will have minimal to no impact unless you
don’t have a signal picked up by any Skimmer stations.
On SSB, without self- spotting, you have an unfair situation where the
difference between winning and losing could be the difference in how many of
your friends spot you versus how many of your competitors’ friends spot them.
It would be totally unfair for a station to win a contest because he was in a
big club with several members spotting him regularly while the better operator
at the better station lost because he didn’t have that support. Self spotting
on SSB levels the playing field to a great extent just like the RBN does on CW.
73…Stan, K5GO
> On Mar 9, 2023, at 7:49 AM, K3TN via CQ-Contest <cq-contest@contesting.com>
> wrote:
>
> Self spotting obviously did not ruin the ARRL SSB, and it is definitely one
> now legal way to increase score. But, it just doesn't feel right. Below is
> what I sent to Bob W5OV in the ARRL contest forum and directly to the CAC.
> Context: Bud AA3B both independently put in similar but slightly different
> feature requests to the N1MM Logger+ team to support comment field labeling
> of self spots. Bud's implemented - you can now include text in your self
> spot, Bud suggested "QRV" and a few were doing that. Bud's goal was to make
> finding self spots more easily. The version pushed out before the ARRL DX SSB
> includes Bud's suggestion.
> Mine was rejected - I wanted a default value put in the text field so I could
> choose to filter out self-spots. Right now the AR cluster syntax doesn't
> support doing so. That would hurt me more than it would hurt any self
> spotter, but, like not using history files, it is what I'd like to do.
> I'm going to check to see if there has been a feature request turn Spot All
> S&P Qs by default, which I think is a much better solution.
> 73 John K3TN
>
> Hi, Bob - I feel like self spotting goes against the values we've had in
> contesting and contesting rules for many years.
>
> In the past there have been little things, like MultiMulti ops not being
> allowed to go home and work the MM from home. That was never going to swing
> the results but it represented a value that QSOs should be made the right
> way, kinda like fishing in a barrel is not an acceptable norm in fishing.
>
> I sent in comments that I was against it in HF non-SSB contests where we
> already have skimmers doing a fine job of spotting stations large and small.
> I'm not a big VHF contester so don't think my opinion shouldn't count there
> - but I feel the same way there! Contesting and skeds to me should not go
> together, nor should self-spotting.
>
> The rules changed, so be it. I'd like a way in CW and RTTY contest for me to
> not participate. I doubt that is a meaningful punishment to anyone but me,
> and it let's me maintain my values. The other way would be for me to only
> look at skimmer spots, which would punish me a bit more!
>
> I would have much, much, much rather see the CAC and members talk with the
> contesting community to think of ways rules could be changed to encourage
> more spotting in SSB contests - that is the real issue that was trying to be
> addressed, since there is no shortage of spots in CW and RTTY tests.
>
> A feature request to N1MM to make the "Spot every S&P QSO" the default would
> have been a simple step. The ARRL using RBN stats after the contest to have
> "Top 10 Human Spotter" listings in the results, maybe even offer $20 coffee
> cups to the top spotters, etc. Many other ways to get more spots in SSB tests.
>
> I've been a fan of leaping on most technology changes that have caused
> controversy, like FT8 and remote operating. But to me this (and history files
> that I choose not to use) are like post contest log manipulation. A norm that
> I'd like to see N1MM Logger+ enable choice in, just the way Logger+ was
> changed years ago to make post-contest log manipulation harder (not
> impossible!).
>
> 73 John K3TN
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|