eHam Logo

Community
 Home
 eHam.net Home
 Articles & Stories
 Contesting Wiki
 Speakout
 Strays
 Survey
 My Profile

Resources
 This Week's Contests
 Classified Ads
 Contest Links
 Product Reviews



Contest Lists
 3830
 CQ-Contest
 CT-User
 NA-User
 SD-User
 TRLog
 VHFcontesting
 WriteLog

Other Lists
 Amps
 AntennaWare
 Propagation
 RFI
 RTTY
 TenTec
 TopBand
 TowerTalk
 Yaesu

 Mailing List FAQs


Site Information
 About This Site
 Contesting.com Team

Contesting Online Survey

Survey Question Current Survey Question

Recently the RDXC committee reclassified P3F to high power from low power without publicly providing strong evidence that any infraction had occurred. They concluded was that the contestant was running HP on 80/40m but not full-time, just 10 minutes here and there without any convincing evidence. It appears they used the RBN as their source of information. Should the RXDC contest have to publicly provide convincing evidence before reclassifying a station from LP to HP?

Recent Surveys

Randy, K5ZD, wrote a sidebar titled " Convergence and Change" in the 2015 CQWW CW printed results in CQ magazine. He wrote that the "convergence of personal computers, Internet access, DX clusters, and CW Skimmer have changed the nature of CW contesting". He goes to say that it is "more difficult to police the line between the single operator working alone and those who are using the assistance of DX spotting." In light of this convergence and change is it time to recombine SO and SOA into a single category?
2016-05-28


What's your primary Software for HF Contests ? ( no VHF/UHF ! )
2015-07-17


Are you ready the this year's winter contest season
2015-07-05


What ways have you found to be effective to attract newcomers to our hobby?
2015-04-28


What is your linear?
2015-02-09


View All Survey Questions

Have a good idea for a Contesting Online Survey question?
Enter your idea!


Do you think contest sponsors should do more to promote and encourage innovations (e.g. remotely operated stations, CW skimmer and other novel developments) in the art and practice of radio sport?
  Posted: May 08, 2008   (105 votes, 8 comments) by VE5ZX

  Yes
  No
  Maybe
  Don't Know
  Don't Care
    (105 votes, 8 comments)
Survey Results
Yes 45% (47)
No 34% (36)
Maybe 10% (11)
Don't Know 7% (7)
Don't Care 4% (4)

Survey Comments
Making new technology is a core of our hobby !
I think the headline says it all.

Bringing new, innovative technologies to the communications is one core of ham radio.

Posted by OH6LI on May 20, 2008

A definate NO!

Why not consider all the tech addons just another step onto the slippery slope of,"Just Another Video Game" etc.
Keep the base/real contest classes devoid of all the so2r,so3r etc, skimmie, cluster, chat, web aids fluff. Dump all this tech addon stuff into the assisted or whatever class and let them fade or glow as it happens. They will be low entry numbers and look just like just that. The essence of competition/contesting is large entry field combined with level playing, the rest is just deep pockets and toys. BUT---Thats only if the tech cheater traps grow at the same rate or better of course. Let the tech cheaters be dealt with by the tech cheater police. All computerized and mercyless. Lots of public exposure ~All computerized~.
Regards, Dan VE6EX..

Posted by ve6ex on May 5, 2008

Just Keep Skimming Assisted
Its a broad question. Encouraging, doesn't mean anything relative to the categories encouraged. Packet is encouraged but in assisted...please keep Skimmer in the same place.

N1UR

Posted by N1UR on May 3, 2008

"Maybe"
This survey doesn't lend itself to a useful (and, thoughtful) selection among the five choices.

I strongly agree that contest sponsors, indeed the entire radio-sport community, should encourage technology advancement. This is a fundamental principle of ham radio.

OTOH, ham radio contesting embraces human skill, not just the advancement of technology. Allowing CW Skimmer in the unassisted single-operator category has promise to eliminate a key ingredient of operator skill ... that of acquiring stations to work, either by CQing or tuning. Using the hunting analogy that many are quoting, technology that improves the weapon is one thing. Having all the prey in a cage to simply shoot is a more fundamental change to "hunting". Even within weapons, archery is allowed to technologically advance, but not to include guns which is a seperate category.

CW Skimmer is this kind of issue. It deserves very careful thought and the emotional responses, while sometimes entertaining, often detract from this. Furthermore, "careful thought" can only go so far. Few of us have any substantial experience with CW Skimmer in protracted contest situations. Perhaps a rational progression could allow this to happen. How about postponing the potential risk of irretrievably destroying Single-Op Unassisted by disallowing CW Skimmer there for now and let the experimentation begin in the SOA categories? A later decision can be made to allow it into the classic SO category if our informed understanding deems that reasonable.

A third SO category (classic SO plus Skimmer) is an alternative, but further burdens our (mostly) volunteer contest sponsors.

73,
Ed - W0YK

Posted by w0yk on May 2, 2008

I vote Maybe
The question wasn't whether CW skimmers or remote station should be allowed or not. The question is whether contest sponsors should actively encourage/promote this? I am not sure about that because I don't what that would mean.

I like N6TV's question about whether use of a local CW skimmer using your radios and antennas should be allowed under "Unassisted S/O" or not? I would think yes. I don't see this much different than allowing SO2R and other computer technologies.

For now I would say QRX and let's see what happens.
/Matt WX5S

Posted by WX5S on May 1, 2008

Don't know how to vote -- it's a two-part survey question
I vote "Don't know" because don't know how to vote on a survey that takes two completely separate issues and combines them into one question.

The question of using a remote receiver is totally different than the question of using a local CW Skimmer or even a classic "remote base" station. So the survey question is too unclear.

I have proposed a new survey question that only asks if CW Skimmer should be allowed in the single-op (unassisted) category. It's now up to the Contesting.com survey manager whether this new survey question gets posted or not. Watch for it.

Posted by N6TV on May 1, 2008

I vote yes
The way the question was posed seems unnecessarily provocative. Should contest sponsors do more? Or should they react appropriately to the technologies that the amateur community develops?

Our hobby has a long history of employing technology to improve results. Some work out (memory keyers), some don't (octopuses).

We have always found a way to embrace new technologies while maintaining meaningful competition. We absorbed memory keyers, computer-assisted dupe sheet maintenance, spotting networks, single ops with multiple radios, and we can find a way to deal with wide-band receivers, advanced signal processing, and remote operation.

We haven't handicapped contests in the past to favor manual CW sending skills or manual dupe sheet skills. We haven't handicapped single operators that develop the skills and have the means to use multiple radios or advanced antenna systems. We HAVE handicapped output power, because it's straightforward to measure.

Make SO+SDR tools like CWSkimmer a separate category, rename SOA to SO Unlimited, or allow these developments in single op, it doesn't matter that much to me.

Existing spotting networks have some aspects of remote receiving already, so we're dealing now with remote receiving to some degree within the existing rules. Multi-op efforts have to have all receiving and transmitting equipment at one site, but spots from other (remote) stations all over the world are allowed.

Attempts to ban these technology entirely seem unnecessary and short-sighted. If you don't like a particular technology, don't use it. But I'm not swayed by those who wish to tell me what (FCC legal) technologies I can and cannot use. I'm happy to enter my log in an appropriate category, or a check log (or no log submission at all) if that's what it takes.

Maybe we should try these technologies out for a while before we change a mess of rules.

Dick, K6KR



Posted by K6KR on May 1, 2008

I Vote No
At some point their needs to be some basic handicaps to make for more "operator skills" than "hardware technology". Take NASCAR for example: Imagine how much faster pit stops could be if they allowed; jacks built into the car, five socket air wrenches, pressurized refueling from a large tank, unlimited crew members over the wall, etc... By design, the rules create handicaps for every team. The results are more skill related than technology related.
Technology in ham radio has it's place, but not necessarily in competitions. Working DX or finding DX is fine. Getting DXCC, WAZ etc... is fine. But getting an unfair advantage on you fellow Hams in a contest, not a great idea. All this does is to make winning a competition have no meaning. The easiest way to prevent this is to address these issues in the Contest Rules. If someone cheats to win, then they have to live with the guilt everytime they look at that winning certificate. Those that don't cheat to win know they did their best and feel no guilt.
73 es C U in the Contests.
Bob - W6RTW

Posted by w6rtw on April 30, 2008

To post a comment, you must be logged in.

If you are not a member, become one now!