|
1-10 of 17 messages
|
Page 1 of 2
Next
|
|
This is a problem which is already being solved
|
Reply
|
|
by K1XM on June 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This article starts with saying that a large number of people are cheating by using packet as a single-op or by self-spotting. It then suggests that, since cheating is widespread the rules should be changed.
I haven't seen anything which suggest that packet cheating is common. Perhaps the vast majority of single-op stations don't use packet, and very few stations self-spot.
As the cheaters discover that they can be caught they will change their behavior. The contest reflector discussion and maybe a few disqualifications will take care of that.
Paul, K1XM
|
| |
|
Time for change with packet
|
Reply
|
|
by K3BU on June 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
1. Analogy would be, for all the sailboat races "because the motors are around" and few people are using them - let's have motors on all sailboats, this way we do not need "archaic" rules and to check for cheaters.
2. Start the new contest with rules YOU like and see what happens.
3. Packet = assistance by OTHER operators via comm link. If one wants to enjoy operating solo then do not herd him with team supported operators.
So hard to understand?
I prefer to run on my own legs, don't need the team of packet coolies to carry me over the finish line!
Am I weird or old fashioned?
Yuri, K3BU, VE3BMV, VE1BY etc.
p.s. I "cheated" once, was single op - no packet, submitted log, somehow it ended up in "ass-isted" category, got certificate proving that "ass-isting" can be handicap.
|
| |
|
You missed the point
|
Reply
|
|
by kr2q on June 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I think you miss the point. This has nothing to do with leveling the playing field, it has to do with honesty.
One can EASILY and LEGALLY use packet...just claim it! In all cases self-spotting is not allowed. Doing so is just cheating. Why do we need thousands of words of discuss this?
de Doug KR2Q
|
| |
|
RE: You missed the point
|
Reply
|
|
by N0RKX on June 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
If I've got the gist of the article cheating with packet/telnet spots is so purvasive that the rules regarding packet/telnet spots should be dropped? How about if we just ignore the rules we don't like or impose them on the people or class of people we don't like?
Just one more example of the "do what ever feels right" mentality that has led to a lot of what ails us in society. It all comes down to the difference between right and wrong. Some people learned it at an early age and some didn't. Those that didn't shouldn't be allowed to profit from it. Even if it is just a Ham Radio contest.
73, N0RKX
|
| |
|
Time for change with packet
|
Reply
|
|
by w5xd on June 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
The author says he's bored, gets my attention, and proceeds to write a long boring self-serving dissertation of circular arguments. To paraphrase: obviously everybody knows the mainstream is that everyone uses packet (and therefore no one uses his own skills to find QSOs!).
|
| |
|
Time for change with packet
|
Reply
|
|
by VE4XT on June 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Since it has been proven that you don't need to cheat to use packet, you simply have to claim the appropriate category, what logic dictates that we must placate these scumwad cheaters by retroactively condoning their immoral, unethical, dishonest and cowardly behaviour?
I think the obvious linguistic difficulties of the author aside, he's written a PhD-level case study of circular logic. The red light scenario is, at once, a red herring and a non-sequitor. The light is never going to change. But the contest rules provide the packet operator with two options: the legal road faced with an always-on green light and the dishonest road faced with an always-on red light. It is only a lack of morality forcing you to choose the latter.
I think the majority of contesters are hard-working, honest folk doing an upstanding job of staying within the rules. These are the people we should honour by leaving the rules as they are and labelling the cheaters for what they really are: cretins that need to work UP to being called scum.
|
| |
|
Time for change with packet
|
Reply
|
|
by N4KG on June 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Interesting attempt to justify CHEATING.
I don't accept that ALL entrants cheat and therefore we should change the rules so that cheaters are no longer looked down upon.
Tom N4KG
|
| |
|
Time for change with packet
|
Reply
|
|
by N1UR on June 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It seems as though there are a lot of North Americans commenting on this article. What do others think?
Do we need self spotting to be legalized? Or is there a reason to keep it as it is, packet use if claimed assisted but not using it to CQ.
I personally am always LP without packet and enter it that way. I don't cheat, and take offense to someone who assumes that I do.
Ed N1UR
|
| |
|
Time for change with packet
|
Reply
|
|
by k6iii on June 12, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Where's the satisfaction in cheating? You know if you've done it and if you 'win' a certificate or whatever, it has very significantly discounted value. I suspect if you frame it and display it in your shack, each time you look at it, if you are honest with yourself, the thought may cross your mind that 'I cheated'.
I use telnet during contests... makes life easier when in the H&P mode. I have a modest station and don't attract a lot of attention, especially when I am running QRP. But there are times when I am not in the 'Assisted' catagory, too.
|
| |
|
RE: Time for change with packet
|
Reply
|
|
by w1jq on July 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I don't use spots during contests. (Or at least, a contest on which I intend to submit a score.) Period. I think that's entirely against the spirit of what the contest is about.
If I had my way (and I don't), I'd limit spotting to within a multi-op operations. No "assisted" class, no nothing. Within a multi-op, one operator can yell "I hear YA on 40 meters."
To some extent, rules for any contest are arbitrary. Why only 11 players per time in football? What makes it a contest is having the same rules. Still, though, it seems to me that a contest is what *you* can accomplish, how you deal with the propagation the sun has choosen to give you, whether you can figure out something that works during poor conditions. It's not what you can do if you have someone telling you where all the stations are.
BTW, like N1UR, I'm not a superstation. I operate low power, with all wire antennas. Not a super-station by any means. Part of the game is what you can do within the limitations of your operation.
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to this topic.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Check our help page for help using
Forums, or send questions, comments, or suggestions to the
Forums Manager.
|
