To: | cq-contest@contesting.com |
---|---|
Subject: | Re: [CQ-Contest] Stew Contest and Multi Op/packet |
From: | W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu@w0mu.com> |
Date: | Sun, 18 Dec 2016 20:46:41 -0700 |
List-post: | <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com> |
The fact is people like to run packet and do it whether the rules say it
is ok or not. The issue is exactly what do you do with them? Another
issue is lack of consistency from one contest to another. Having
different contests is great but people are creatures of habit and might
think hey another contest I am going to do X when X does not even exist.
In my case I really didn't care about my score. I am sitting at 10th now LP with 6 hours. Not overly impressive and I expect to fall. My decision to use packet was to keep me in the contest and doing something. Instead I went to bed. This was not good for me, ok sleep is good or the contest is it? In the grand scheme of the contest W0MU being in or out of the contest is not a big deal. Did I care that I would have "violated" the rules. Not really. I do this for my fun. What I do really should have no impact on what you do in the contest. Even if I submitted under Multi who really cares? How can you or anyone know if I am running packet or not? What if 100 or 200 people decided to toss in the towel? Is that good for the overall health of the contest? I can't prove that packet would have made any difference in any contest. My point is that people are doing it, we need to realize it and handle it in a way that makes sense to that participant understanding that we are the upper tier of contesting and we essentially play a different game and depend on the new people and randoms to keep the fun going. I had a number of runs that I believe were packet generated. I thought it was great! I love pileups and running rate. Were most of those people Multi? I doubt it. Did those folks even submit a log? No clue. Packet is out there. Randoms as we call them in gaming stumble onto 160 or see all the RBN spots on 160 and show up for the fun. Isn't this a good thing? I talked about online gaming and the devs or organizers forcing people to play a certain way and the negative impact it has on the game both in game and outside in the gaming forums. We can write all the rules we want or hope that everyone reads them but we know they don't. I think as a community we have to understand what people are doing and admit that maybe it would just be easier to acknowledge what is actually happening, recognize them for being SO packet and move on, instead trying to force people to change. So we have people doing things that the organizers really didn't want to encourage but here they are anyway. Do you ignore them and attempt to find the single ops with packet that are in Multi and put them in a check log? If you do that and they see it in the results are they ticked off? Are they told why. Will they come back and play or will they just say no thanks the next time. We have chosen to recognize QRP when QRP entries tend to be considerably less in number than the other classes. Does it make sense to continue to ignore SO A if there are more of those types of entries than QRP or some other class. For the record, I like the QRP class, encouraging less power etc is a good thing, but I should get extra point for having to dig em out! HI! For SP it appears that Assisted are getting grouped with Multi which is essentially the same in this contest except for the multi operator part. NAQP is different because of the multiple transmitters and 10 minute timers essentially eliminating SO2R Single op assisted. Which is why I don't think it made sense. Is it really that big of a deal to just recognize that SOA is a thing that is not going away and recognize it? Can someone detail how me or others running packet has any impact on any other competitor? What am I missing here? I get the packet pile up but rare mults always have pileups. What else? I appreciate the work that all the organizers do. I respect their rule changes, but I think we should be able to talk about them or talk about changes or why things are the way they are without being scared to talk about it. I appreciate all the opinions expressed and hope that you all will work me in the next one and I will do the same. On 12/18/2016 5:21 PM, Mike Smith VE9AA wrote: Agree 100% Ken. If you look at 3830 (which is only a fraction of the actual entrants) you'll see many multiops that only list one operator.(mostly the LP gang I think) True, I suppose its possible some of the fellows filling in the 3830 form simply forgot to list all the guys at the station that night. (unlikely, but could happen)Others, however, are apparently of the belief that a Multiop means single op + packet. (guess they never read the rules or are creating/justifying their own rules somehow in their mind)I certainly do not speak for the Boring ARC , nor the SP contest,. but if my ears are to be believed (packet pileups last night) along with 3830 posts and misinformed (but perhaps well intended) posts like the ones I see from W0MU, then it would appear at first glance that either folks are using packet and just putting themselves in a multiop category because they believe that's what they are supposed to do (per ARRL convention) or something else I have not yet thought of.Disappointed? Yes. Surprised? Sadly, no not really.Part of the problem may be the way the rules are written or they are becoming watered down. I snipped this from the logs rec'd page mere moments ago. Look for the word assisted:"2016 STEW PERRYThis report generated on Sunday, 18-Dec-16 at 14:58.Total logs = 436C = Category (CheckLog, Multi or Single). ASSISTED classified as Multi.."Mike VE9AA FN66Mike, Coreen & Corey Keswick Ridge, NBFrom: Ken K6MR [mailto:k6mr@outlook.com] Sent: December 18, 2016 8:08 PM To: Mike Smith VE9AA; cq-contest@contesting.com Subject: RE: [CQ-Contest] Stew Contest and Multi Op/packetMike:Rule 6. Seems pretty plain to me. Packet is not allowed for single op, and discouraged for Multi op. Local skimmers appear to be ok, but grudgingly.SP appears to be an attempt to hold on to "Boy and his Radio" (copyright K0HB) contesting. Kinda like Stew did himself, as I read the history.Fine by me.Ken K6MRFrom: Mike Smith VE9AA <mailto:ve9aa@nbnet.nb.ca> Sent: Sunday, December 18, 2016 1:10 PM To: cq-contest@contesting.com Subject: [CQ-Contest] Stew Contest and Multi Op/packetThe Stew Perry contest is not an ARRL event, so entering in Multi Op does not mean "Single Op + Packet" I was surprised at a few mini packet pileups I had last night. Now I know why.After reviewing the DX Cluster today and reading 3830 it's apparent nobody reads rules anymore.In all fairness, there were a couple guys using skimmer/telnet/cluster submitting properly as checklogs as they were chasing new countries or whatever.I would suggest to the Boring Club to clarify this point in the multi op rules. (ie: Multi Op does not mean Single Op + Packet).Mike VE9AAMike, Coreen & Corey Keswick Ridge, NB_______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing list CQ-Contest@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest |
<Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
---|---|---|
|
Previous by Date: | Re: [CQ-Contest] RAC Contest and 160m QSO's, Mike Smith VE9AA |
---|---|
Next by Date: | Re: [CQ-Contest] Observations of a young ham, Taylor Kelly |
Previous by Thread: | Re: [CQ-Contest] Stew Contest and Multi Op/packet, Jim Brown |
Next by Thread: | Re: [CQ-Contest] Stew Contest and Multi Op/packet, Kelly Taylor |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |