HI guys...
Been following this discussion for a while, and I appreciate all of the
viewpoints presented. There are some aspects of the situation that don't
bother me too much, and others that, sadly, are just a reflection of a lack
of gentlemanly behavior (with apologies to any YL's here, but I'm sure you
understand my meaning).
I've been involved in VHF contesting now for over 35 years, pretty much to
the exclusion of other aspects of the hobby, and almost always with a
multi-operator group. When I first became involved, it was with a group that
had a highly competitive relationship with the group down the road. There
were many stories told of amplifiers well over the FCC's limit ( and not by
"just a little"), noise-making jamming devices left close-by the other
team's station, and plenty of 'rubber-pencil' accusations. This was mostly
before I became involved with them, although I did see a couple of those
amplifiers in use, albeit within the legal limit at the time, 2 kW PEP
input. My point being that a lot of this 'cheating' stuff isn't a
particularly a new thing. There are simply more and subtler ways to do it
now.
As I said, the sad part is that we seem to have lost, if we ever had had it,
the notion of what constitutes fair play vs. doing everything possible that
is either not specifically prohibited in the rules or difficult to police.
I've said before that it seems like winning a piece of paper to hang on your
wall does, for some people, justify behavior that is simply best described
as dishonest.
On the other hand, much of the recent discussion here seems to be largely
sour grapes because someone else thought of a trick and you didn't, or chose
not to go there. Let's face it: we are all participating in this sport
because we get some enjoyment out of it. Anyone who is getting an ulcer or
high blood pressure over it needs to seek help soon. It's your hobby, not
your career. It's fine to take it seriously from the standpoint of wanting
to do your best, but that isn't the same as having to be the best.
The group I contest with now is about a half dozen experienced VHF
contesters who enjoy working together to get the station working well and
the challenge of improving our scores year over year. We take it seriously
enough to have some heated arguments about which equipment changes will be
the best for us, and how to prioritize our work list. We have succeeded in
winning our section in limited multi-op most of the time, and in placing in
the top ten with reasonable consistency. Sure, we'd like to do better, and
we keep working at it, because it's fun and interesting for us.
Like all of you, we have our limitations. We don't have a big bankroll to
fund equipment, or a lot of free time to work on all the projects we have in
mind. Our contest site is out in the boonies a bit, and it has only been in
the last couple of years that we could even use our cell phones without
having to climb 40 feet up the tower to get coverage. We still do not have
internet access of any sort available (there's that money issue again). So
the whole discussion about spotting is at once both meaningless and
disheartening as we realize that we are now at another competitive
disadvantage.
It has become a bit of a ritual for us to look at the published contest
results and see how we stacked up in points. Usually, the overall winners
will have 5 times the points we do, so the ritual question sounds like a
line from the Butch/Sundance movie: " Who are those guys?". Or more like,
how do those guys make so many more points than we do? Maybe it's spotting.
Maybe it's staying up all night to work the digital modes and guys they have
skeds with. Maybe it's working a lot of local FM stations. Maybe it is
simply that they have a better location, or less noise, or more operators
pounding away 24/7. We don't know if any of those theories are valid, and it
doesn't really matter. We had fun! And it is not unusual for several local
single op stations to score more points than we did! How humbling is that?!
We look at what went well, and what didn't. We don't worry too much about
how those other guys might have bent the rules to win. We probably aren't
100% pure either, but we like to think that whatever bending we did was
accidental and not chronic.
So what's my point? Do things like grid circling and spotting and other
such 'cheats' bother me. Yes, a little bit, when they represent a sort of
exclusive advantage that is not available to me and most others. But then
again, they don't bother me any more than using a parrot to call CQ Contest
incessantly, or computer logging/duping, or a machine to send and receive CW
because my skills aren't up to the task. At one time, those were also
considered unfair advantages, but are now fairly common and accepted.
Technology will always advance to provide new capabilities, and hams will
find ways to exploit those, especially in contesting where there are
bragging rights at stake. It seems to me that a totally fair fight could
only end in a draw anyway.
The rules will never keep up with technology, or our ability to innovate new
advantages. But these innovations ought to stay within the rules, and maybe
the rules shouldn't try to stifle creativity too much in an effort to create
that fictional level playing field. I'm OK with that sort of 'cheating'.
Now, those guys 35 years ago with the big amps and jammers? THAT was
cheating!
So let's strive for rules that at least provide some fairness in terms of
competing against other stations of more or less comparable capability, but
don't go overboard with it. High power and low power. Fixed and mobile.
Single op and multi-op. Rules that spell out the minimum requirements for a
valid QSO. And maybe some major consequences (I'm ruling out the death
penalty here) for cheating that truly is a rules violation, but not for
innovation. There is inherent in this, though, the phenomenon of escalation,
as everyone tries to keep up.
It takes character to win without cheating, and more of it to not win
(notice I didn't say lose) without crying about it.
So how about we get back to talking about how to improve all of our scores
by working together on innovations, and about how to attract more newbie's
to this facet of ham radio.
Regards,
Tom Holmes, N8ZM
Tipp City, OH
EM79xx
-----Original Message-----
From: vhfcontesting-bounces@contesting.com
[mailto:vhfcontesting-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Les Rayburn
Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 1:20 AM
To: John Geiger; vhfcontesting@contesting.com; R Johnson
Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] Assisted Classes
John,
I certainly follow your logic on this point. True enough that it's difficult
for the ARRL to police some of these limitations, but I think the ones you
listed would quickly become self-evident.
For example, if an operator is running 1KW on 2 Meters and claiming to be
"low power", he won't fool many of his fellow competitors. Likewise, a
multi-op station (even one running CW or digital modes) would become obvious
too.
Spotting is much more difficult to detect. Let's say that someone operating
in the "Single Operator Low Power" category decides to monitor the Internet
clusters during the June contest. He doesn't post any spots, so is
completely, 100% undetectable. But using the network, he manages to snag
five or six more multipliers on six meters than his nearest competitor in
his section. He wins the section, while his honest competitor finishes 2nd.
Beyond all that, what I dislike is that eliminating spotting results in
fewer contacts per contest. Period. Given the very real differences between
VHF and HF contesting, I think we should do everything we can to make more
contacts possible. Assistance accomplishes that, and I think would be a
healthy change for VHF.
73,
Les Rayburn, N1LF
EM63nf
Les Rayburn, Director
High Noon Film
100 Centerview Drive Suite 111
Birmingham, AL 35216-3748
205.824.8930
205.824.8960 FAX
205.253.4867 CELL
http://www.highnoonfilm.com
--------------------------------------------------
From: "John Geiger" <aa5jg@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, February 15, 2010 8:46 PM
To: "Les Rayburn" <les@highnoonfilm.com>; <vhfcontesting@contesting.com>; "R
Johnson" <k1vu@tmlp.com>
Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] Assisted Classes
> Following this logic, then, shouldn't we just eliminate all power
> categories from contests, as the ARRL really can't policy how much power
> anyone is running? Probably need to eliminate the single op/multiop
> distinction also, since it is always possible that you could get a little
> late night help that isn't reported on the summary sheet. I guess the
> only classes we would need for VHF contesting would be limited (4 bands or
> less) and unlimited (as many bands as you want).
>
> 73s John AA5JG
>
> --- On Sun, 2/14/10, R Johnson <k1vu@tmlp.com> wrote:
>
>> From: R Johnson <k1vu@tmlp.com>
>> Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] Assisted Classes
>> To: "Les Rayburn" <les@highnoonfilm.com>, vhfcontesting@contesting.com
>> Date: Sunday, February 14, 2010, 9:45 PM
>> Well put Les !!!
>> 73
>> Bob, K1VU
>>
>> At 15:58 2/12/2010, Les Rayburn wrote:
>> >It reminds me of Oppenheimer's analogy about the Atomic
>> Age. The "genie is out of the bottle". Web clusters,
>> spotting networks, Twitter updates, etc. are here and
>> nothing will change that.
>> >
>> >The ARRL can't police these sites, because they don't
>> own them.
>> >
>> >It seems to be that retaining the notion of an
>> "unassisted class" is wishful thinking. Many of us long for
>> days gone by, filled with comic books, and pinball machines,
>> and rotary telephones. But those days are gone. You can
>> surround yourself with mementos of those days, or stubbornly
>> refuse to use that new touch tone phone, but it won't bring
>> that world back.
>> >
>> >In any contest, people can and will use whatever means
>> are at their disposal to win. Yes, most of us will follow
>> the rule and take pride in the fact that we didn't act
>> dishonorably to win 5th place or crack the Top Ten. But
>> there are others who "win at any cost" will always be the
>> order of the day.
>> >
>> >The ARRL has to be realistic about their ability to
>> enforce the rules of any contest, and try to make it as fair
>> as possible for everyone involved. It's clear that they
>> cannot effectively enforce many of the rules that involve
>> the use of spotting networks. So why not just admit that
>> Genie is out of the bottle. Allow assistance in the form of
>> spotting networks, and move on.
>> >
>> >This levels the playing field, and operators add
>> another tool to their shack. In the end, the best operators
>> will still prevail, as they usually do. Yes, it changes the
>> game--and we'll mourn the passing of a simpler time, when a
>> operator could sit alone in a room, disconnected from the
>> outside world save for their radio.
>> >
>> >But life and technology marches on.
>> >
>> >73,
>> >
>> >Les Rayburn, N1LF
>> >EM63nf
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >Les Rayburn, Director
>> >High Noon Film
>> >100 Centerview Drive Suite 111
>> >Birmingham, AL 35216-3748
>> >205.824.8930
>> >205.824.8960 FAX
>> >205.253.4867 CELL
>> >http://www.highnoonfilm.com
>> >_______________________________________________
>> >VHFcontesting mailing list
>> >VHFcontesting@contesting.com
>> >http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> VHFcontesting mailing list
>> VHFcontesting@contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2690 - Release Date: 02/15/10
> 13:35:00
>
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
|