On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 05:54:07PM -0500, Marshall-K5QE wrote:
> The Anti-Assistance folks seem to want to have contesting to be like it
> was in the 1970s....no Internet, no spotting(packet or otherwise), no
> nothing. One sage called this "just a boy and his radio" type of
> operation. IF you believe that this is the way that you want to
> operate, GO FOR IT!!! Nothing is stopping you right now. Light a
> candle, descend into your basement, and work everything that you can.
> If this is how you wish to measure your manhood(sorry gals), it's no
> skin off my nose. Of course, hidden in the background, is the idea that
> you still want to have a better score.
I do not have a basement nor any candles but I generally operate radio
contests without assistance. I think using terms like that is an
attempt to denigrate those that choose to operate without using more
that what comes over the air on the contest bands as being some sort
of backwards, basement dwelling trolls is not helpful to you advancing
your views. I am sure that if I thought about it I could come up with
equally disparaging ways to describe the ways that you desire to
operate a radio contest but I will attempt to refrain.
>
> This is Assistance vs Non-Assistance a philosophy issue(its almost a
> religious issue). A few years ago, I was astounded to find out that
> there were people that wanted to run contests completely "in the blind"
> with no help at all. I continue to be astounded by this point of view.
Why do you find this astounding. This is how I operate and as you
know I do OK - I seem to make pretty good QSO totals and OK scores
given my location and limited hardware. But I find it to be a personal
challenge to see if I (alone with just my radios) and post a better
score than last time. I guess one could use dynamite to fish but that
seems to take the fun out of it for most fishermen.
> but in general it lays out the philosophy issues well. The current ARRL
> rules prohibit this, prohibit that, oh and you can't do this either. The
> effect is to artificially MINIMIZE the number of contacts that you make
> rather than MAXIMIZING them.
That is one view of rules - but rules are there to give people
guidance for what is and is not allowed. There are rules in there
than limit who you can work or that minimum distances are required for
some contacts and bands or the fact that working a station 10o times
on one band only counts for one contact and not 100. And I think if
you look at and think about the rules you can find many that you agree
with because they control the behavior of people doing the contest.
I do not see these as bad things.
> When I contest, I want to make very
> contact that is possible with my station and the given propagation
> conditions. To me that is what contesting is all about--MAKING contacts.
So maybe we should change the rules so you can work each station as
many times as you can. This would allow for more making contacts.
I think it is easy to attack the rules that one does not like.
> STRUCTURAL:
> A)If every two bit VHF station announces every 5 min, the reflectors
> would be completely overwhelmed. Some method needs to be found to solve
> this problem....maybe peer pressure would work, but I doubt it.
It sounds like you want to have a rule that LIMITS the announcements.
> B)Posts concerning a massive opening in CN87 or FN54 are essentially
> useless to someone where I live. It is extremely unlikely that I could
> work either of those locations from here...even on 6M.
So what should we do?
Many of the DX spots that come over that system are "useless" to
users not in that area or not in darkness if the spot is for
160 meters.
> I believe that getting Announcements through the ARRL for all modes and
> classes would be next to impossible. The HF Philosophy folks would cry
> out that "the sky is falling" and would do everything possible to block
> it....since it does not sit well with their world view. We need to
> show that Announcements for digital MS and digital EME work, make the
> contest a lot more fun, and don't harm anything.
I still fail to see why you see this as some "HF Philosophy" and that
somehow there is a "VHF Philosophy" that wants to have Announcements.
I am a contest operator.
I am not a "HF" contest operator nor am I a "VHF" contest operator.
I operate VHF contests. I do not agree with everything you say. We
have heard from others that operate VHF contests that also do not
agree with your views. But you seem to be implying that the folks
that do not hold your views are "HF types" and I think by extension
you are saying those "HF types" and the view they hold on thsi subject
should be somehow discounted or maybe even dismissed because they are
"HF view" and thus do not apply to the VHF bands.
>From my perspective VHF/UHF contests and HF contests are only
different because of the bands used. I approach my operating for them
they same way and and they "feel" the same to me when I am do them.
Sure there are differences but fundamentally they are the same beast. I
am trying to make as many contacts as I can in a given period of time
under the rule structure of the contest.
VHF is not harder than HF.
HF is not harder than VHF.
> SUMMARY:
>
> Let's start working the Directors to get this limited idea written into
> the rules. It is a good start and should be doable.
If you want to change the rules I would suggest that you come up with
a set of rules that you think will work and submit that to the contest
sponsors. Just saying you want to add announcements might not get you
what you want.
The only thing I ask is that you keep a non-assisted single op
category in the mix for us basement dwelling trolls.
--
George Fremin III - K5TR
geoiii@kkn.net
http://www.kkn.net/~k5tr
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
|