Good points, Bob ...
1. Is Packet a distraction and therefore a Red Herring?
Whether Packet usage is a distraction or a performance-enhancer depends on
how it is used and the skill of the operator. I haven't seen much evidence
that serious operators have really honed their usage of Packet to achieve a
net gain in their results.
For starters, few operators seem to carefully consider what their primary
goal should be in using Packet in a given contest. In Sweepstakes, as an
example, I think Packet is much more useful in finding new stations to work
rather than mults, especially after the initial ratefest on Saturday. Using
Packet for mults has little value to the serious contester, although
interesting to a casual operator whose goal is a Clean Sweep Mug. The
serious operator will get 78-80 mults just by being skillfully active for 24
hours and the last 1-2 mults are much less important in final score than
finding stations to work since stations can only be worked on one band.
Serious operators run out of stations to work and it is helpful to catch the
more casual operators who may venture a CQ or two. (Thanks to Packet, they
will increasingly find themselves with a pile-up as more Assisted ops pounce
on unworked stations as much as a new mults.)
Is the PacketCluster just another window on the logging computer screen or
is it totally integrated into a highly effective user interface? The
extreme of just a raw Packet window will likely be a distraction and result
in decreased performance compared to turning it off. OTOH, fully
integrating spots into the logger's bandmap ... and, only those spots
germane to the Packet goal above ... could be a real asset depending on
operator skill at pouncing on them, interleaved with running on another band
or frequency. Again, using Sweepstakes and an example, having one's bandmap
filled with unworked stations across all bands can be a decided advantage.
It basically simulates a multi-op where hundreds of other operators are
searching all bands and finding new stations for you to work.
2. What exactly is "self-spotting"?
I've never fully understood the debate about self-spotting on the
PacketCluster. Self-spotting is a common and well-respected operating
tactic off the PacketCluster, so why is it so unethical for the SO-Assisted
or Multi-Op station to post their run frequencies on the PacketCluster? Of
course, outside the PacketCluster we seldom call it "self-spotting" and
instead spin it up as "moving mults" or "let's work on other bands". But it
is the same thing, except for the fact that such self-spotting is limited to
those who are listening to the operator, whereas anyone connected to the
PacketCluster will see a self-spot, even if their radio is turned off. Many
more potential operators will see a PacketCluster self-spot compared to the
operator announcing his other frequency(ies) on the frequency he is
currently running. That's the only distinction I can see.
73,
Ed - P49X (W0YK)
P.S. In the CQWW WPX RTTY contest, operating from Aruba and running on two
bands simultaneously, I've never found a way to take much advantage of
Packet which the rules allow for all operators. With a rate in excess of
50/hour on each of two radios for the majority of the contest, it is hard to
justify the interruption to rhythm and the risk of losing a run frequency
just to get another prefix (and, possibly encountering a Packet pileup ;>).
Especially when every 4th contact (on average) is a new prefix anyway. (The
new prefix rate drops to every 8th contact at the end of the contest, so
there is more incentive to leave a low-run-rate-frequency and chase mults.)
Furthermore, there is a chance to miss a new prefix answering CQs while
you're off chasing a PacketSpot. So, maybe this is an opportunity for
second receivers in each radio ... or a third radio. Hurts my single-op
brain just thinking about it.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com [mailto:cq-contest-
> bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Robert Chudek - K0RC
> Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 7:14 PM
> To: cq-contest@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Chatgate
>
> I'll start by saying "I don't have the answer"... but some things can be
> carried (or perceived) to the extreme... your XYL bringing food & drink to
> you (sorry, you're now reclassified assisted)... I ran 150 Watts in Low
> Power class (sorry, your measurement techniques are +/- 5% so you're now
> reclassified into HP class)... my buddy stopped by to drop off the
> handheld
> I loaned him last week (sorry, you're now reclassified multi-op)... etc.
>
> So... what if the spotting and self spotting rules were dropped
> altogether???... Spot your brains out if you want... Flood the packet
> system
> with your run frequencie(s)... Call all your friends on the phone... Send
> them TWXes... Get on the local repeater... Or setup a Jerry Lewis style
> marathon to solicit contacts for your station...
>
> What impact would this have in the contest and in the final standings?
> This
> is not a rhetorical question! Do you think this would change the outcome
> of
> the contest? Or would you simply be wasting time with all these
> distractions
> instead of "contesting", as has been suggested about the Scoreboard?
>
> I am also interested in what the intent of the no self-spotting rule is in
> the first place? Is it to assure all communications is via amateur radio?
> Or
> that some unfair advantage is circumvented? Or what?
>
> 73 de Bob - KØRC in MN
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|