Yep my skimmer located right next to my radio did a lot of work to find
and spot my station? Not so much. I do not actually spot W0MU on my
skimmer but I probably should have. Were there any rules disallowing
such from V3? If I had a skimmer down here, would I have worked more
people on 10m because I did not get one skimmer spot? Most likely. Are
there skimmers out there with ID's, as they are not callsigns spotting
their owners stations all the time? Bet on it.
As soon as we got new spots in V3 new pileups would show up. Yes it
matters. Maybe not for big 1500watt stations but for the little guy
with small antennas and low power it is a huge difference maker. SSB
will be different because CW is a much better mode for getting out. I
was lucky to work one station on 160 SSB last night with 100 watts. I
worked stuff much farther away on CW in the CW test.
Radiosport in this hobby happens once every few years for a chosen few.
The rest of us are participating in the hobby. There is not much sport
when the there is never a level playing field. That would be like
calling gambling a sport VS house where the house has the odds. Sure
you might be able to win but in the long haul the house always wins.
W0MU
On 2/26/2017 8:31 AM, Kelly Taylor wrote:
While I can see the merits of both sides of the argument, I think it’s
important to guard against extremism when looking at this idea.
True; VE3NEA is, apparently, trying to develop an SSB Skimmer, and true, CW Skimmer is
already a version of self-spotting for CW contests, although with Skimmer, your signal
has at least been heard over the air by the Skimmer. As well, since CW Skimmer
doesn’t discriminate between assisted and non-assisted operations, even those
stations not using assistance get immediate benefits by being spotted.
It’s also true there’s merit in not allowing self-spotting for SSB.
But it’s being hyperbolic to suggest one little tweak to the rules — allowing self-spotting
on a limited basis for SSB ops — amounts to moving the whole shebang to online. I don’t see
anything proposed that would let anyone call CQ or complete QSOs on the Internet. Indeed, it seems the
majority of those proposing self-spotting for SSB are proposing very limited use of self-spotting.
We already have Skimmer doing essentially the same thing as is proposed for SSB, and I
don’t hear people saying it’s moved CW contests all online.
Pros:
You don’t have to worry a friend’s well-intentioned spotting of you could lead
to a DQ just because he uses the same ISP.
Your spot is likely to be correct. (Be pretty damning if you screwed up your
own spot!)
Equalizes differences in rules between CW and SSB owing to the lack of an SSB
Skimmer.
Allows contest committees to focus on other, potentially more egregious, forms
of cheating
Cons:
To be competitive, you have to be connected, which is not always economical
depending on location,
Adds to an already cluttered array of spots,
Erases one of the last refuges for ‘boy (or girl) and his (or her) radio’ kinds
of operations.
Those are the points that should be debated.
73, kelly, ve4xt
ps: I think it would be an interesting exercise to hold a contest that forbids any forms of
viewing of spots. It might be illuminating then to have the RBN filter out a variety of
active stations and then insert manually spots of a few of those filtered stations, and see
whether the pileups continue to grow organically or whether a spot produces a “packet
pileup,” and then how many of those stations in the packet pileup submit logs claiming
to have followed the rules.
On Feb 26, 2017, at 7:00 AM, Jukka Klemola <jpklemola@gmail.com> wrote:
Good.
I hope the World of contest judging would be so simple.
There is more.
Next question we see in the Pandora's box:
HE4RME complains on CQ-Contest reflector:
I called CQ on Internet Protocol.
I was asked on internet protocol if I heard CQ0IP calling me.
CQ0IP himself was asking.
I have CQ0IP in my contest log submission and also CQ0IP has me on his log
submission.
CQ0IP wrote a frequency on his message so I QSYed there and I was there.
But the evidence the contest committee presents as a true recording on the
band shows there was no actual radio contact.
How can the committee say there was no radio contact?
We both were transmitting each others' calls on the same frequency!
Why are we penalized for our activity?
I hope this clarifies the opening gray line to all.
73,
Jukka OH6LI
2017-02-26 14:30 GMT+02:00 Helmut Mueller <helmut@photo42.de>:
I don't see the Problem.
Unassisted = NOT Cluster = No Spots = No Selfspots
Assisted = Allow self spotting
73
Helmut DF7ZS
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] Im Auftrag von
Jukka Klemola
Gesendet: Sunday, 26 February, 2017 10:51 AM
An: Joe <nss@mwt.net>
Cc: cq-contest <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Betreff: Re: [CQ-Contest] Allowing self-spotting
Sirs,
I have difficulties following this discussion.
There are people selling the idea to allow self-spotting.
Which way are we going:
-allowing CQ calling on internet
-keeping the un-assisted category
.. or are we developing extreme double.standard or what is going on?
A glimpse into the Pandora's box we are now cranking open:
Is a station using CQoIP but claims not using spotting data, is such
entrant
un-assisted?
73,
Jukka OH6LI
2017-02-26 3:04 GMT+02:00 Joe <nss@mwt.net>:
I also like this self spotting.
BUT..... and there always is a BUT isn't there? I like the three
QSO's rule, BUT. there needs to also be a max per hour?
Then gain here we are, back to the same problem, UG!
I can just see someone spotting themself after every q.
Joe WB9SBD
Sig
The Original Rolling Ball Clock
Idle Tyme
Idle-Tyme.com
http://www.idle-tyme.com
On 2/24/2017 4:30 PM, Stan Stockton wrote:
Yes. This is what I wrote about a year and a half ago:
2015-10-28 4:06 GMT+01:00 Stan Stockton <wa5rtg@gmail.com>:
There should be a rule allowing the software to automatically submit
a self spot after you have logged perhaps three QSOs on the same
frequency - same rule for everyone. After all, when you call CQ on CW
you are, in effect, self spotting. There is a huge advantage in being
spotted and, on SSB, there is a huge difference in the number of
spots for different stations giving advantage to those who are
spotted frequently and quickly after a frequency change. 73... Stan,
K5GO
On Feb 24, 2017, at 9:49 AM, Steve London <n2icarrl@gmail.com> wrote:
On CW, we already have the equivalent of self spotting, thanks to CW
Skimmer and the RBN. It's virtually impossible to NOT be spotted. CW
Skimmer/RBN is the great equalizer - you no longer have to depend on
a network of friends to spot you.
We wouldn't be having this discussion if there was a SSB Skimmer.
Right now, we have a system where "those with the right friends"
have an advantage. Why not simply allow self spotting on SSB ?
73,
Steve, N2IC
On 02/22/2017 12:22 PM, Bob Henderson wrote:
Having myself met with unfair and unjustified treatment at the
hands of RDXC adjudicators I can empathise with those claiming
unfair treatment in adjudication. However in this case having
looked at the information supplied and done a little further
digging, I am unsure my empathy is justified.
3V8SS it seems acknowledges cheer-leading by his fellow Tunisians
KG5OUE and F4HJD but claims not to have encouraged it. I am
inclined to believe him, given some of my own friends have spotted
me during contests and I have NEVER, that is NOT EVER, asked anyone
to do so.
That said, HB9EOU appears to be rather more than a random contact
with Switzerland. Last year HB9EOU operated in the IOTA contest
from 3V8SM on Djerba Island AF-083 along with F4HJD. Ash (3V8SS) +
F4HJD + 3V8CB had activated 3V8SM from Djerba Island a couple of
months earlier.
The recording of the contact with HB9EOU seems odd, though the
events not entirely inexplicable but small circles in which the
same calls crop up repetitively raise questions. Perhaps it's all
an extraordinary coincidence but there is enough doubt for me to
wonder whether my empathy might have been misplaced.
Bob, 5B4AGN
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 09:48:33 -0600
From: "Doug Renwick" <ve5ra@sasktel.net>
To: "'Ashraf Chaabane'" <ash.kf5eyy@gmail.com>, "'cq-contest'"
<cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] R: Re: R: 3V8SS disqualified from WW SSB and
WRTC
Message-ID: <E976655BE7DB448B8806659C02036C2C@DOUG8PC>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
After reading your post and based on your response to the
committee, I would conclude that Bob, W5OV; Doug, KR2Q; Scott, W4PA
are nitpickers with an agenda.
If anything valid is further introduced to support the committee's
decision, then I would revise my opinion. As it stands, I believe
you were unfairly DQd.
Doug
-----Original Message-----
From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On
Behalf Of Ashraf Chaabane
Sent: February-22-17 7:34 AM
To: cq-contest
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] R: Re: R: 3V8SS disqualified from WW SSB
and WRTC
Mike, Ria and all,
I put online the CC accusations (their native emails) and my
responses:
http://www.kf5eyy.info/3V8SS_WWSSB16_DQ.htm
I think that allows everyone to read from both sides. Now it's up
to you to comment!
73
--
Ash ~ 3V8SS/KF5EYY
http://www.kf5eyy.info/
Phone/SMS: (+216) 22670026
Skype: kf5eyy
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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
|