I agree, any reporting process should be open (no anonymous
postings), and should include all the relevant time, frequency, band,
and mode data, so the offending station will be able to correlate
the bad signal reports with his operator(s), station configuration,
rig used, etc. In multioperator situations on SSB for instance, dirty
signals can easily result from inexperienced operators cranking up
the mic gain too high, and even on CW, multiple rigs are often
used, so here too nailing the exact time and frequency can be
relevant in the troubleshooting process.
An open process will allow the offending station to respond to
the reports, ask questions of those making the reports, and update
the community as to what steps he or she has taken or will be
taking to remedy any identified problems.
The flavor of this system should be one of hams helping hams with
constructive feedback as opposed to a Salem Witch Trial. It should
be moderated to encourage reports that are scientifically minded
with as much technical detail as possible (equipment used, filters
settings, NB=OFF, antenna configuration, etc) and explicitly
discourage cheap shots, name calling, finger pointing, and other
forms of ad hominem attack.
If done correctly, this sort of thing could really provide a great
service to the contesting community (cleaner signals mean more
clear frequencies for everyone to enjoy and more QSOs possible).
BTW, I think this 598K reflector should be a last resort. I have
contacted a number of US stations privately over the last few
years to let them know that they might have a problem with their
station and that I was willing to assist them with the troubleshooting
process. Generally the response I have gotten from these folks
has been positive.
My $.02
73 de Mike,
W4EF..............................................................
----- Original Message -----
From: <k3ft@erols.com>
To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 4:03 AM
Subject: [CQ-Contest] publcizing reports of 'assumed, suspected' statiions
with bad sigs..
> Ken Claerbout wrote:
> >
> > >I'll make it so your post can be anonymous or not with >date, time,
band,
> > and comments fields. The most >complained about stations (top-10 USA
and
> > top-10 >Europe) can be featured on CQ-Contest once per >month for their
> > efforts. :)
> >
> > >Sounds like a plan! We can start with the 10 Meter >Contest this
weekend!
> >
> > Right - and we have all seen the valuable input from some of the
anonymous
> > postings on reflectors. Something like this is ripe with potential for
> > abuse. What's to say the person making the report doesn't have their
noise
> > blanker cranked up, is just suffering overload from a very strong
signal, or
> > has an ax to grind so they stuff the ballot box on someone? I'm sure
the
> > anti-contesting community could have fun with this. Some poor slob
could
> > wind up on Contesting.Com's 10 most wanted without proper cause. I'm
all
> > for cleaning up the bands but this seems a little excessive. If you
think
> > someone has a bad signal, just come out and tell them on the air or drop
> > them an e-mail.
> >
> > 73
> > Ken K4ZW
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > CQ-Contest mailing list
> > CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contestAnonymous
reporting? Public posting without authenticated attribution of the
originator?
> Accuasations without substantiation? Public tarrings and featherings sans
ANY
> determination that the reporter wasn't in error?
>
> Good grief! This can't be from supposedly enlightened people in 2002!
This has to be
> from reports of people talking back, say, the late 1700's, or maybe 1939,
1941, or maybe
> the 1950's and 1960's?
>
> Amazing how little things change!
>
> K3FT
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
|