|
11-17 of 17 messages
|
Previous
Page 2 of 2
|
|
RE: Time for change with packet
|
Reply
|
|
by W1EBI on July 16, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I totally agree with your last sentence, Mike. But I don't agree at all with your suggestion that packet goes against the spirit of the contest. The rules of a contest providing for an assisted category in fact encourage a segment of contestants to enter in that category. Is a high-power category against the "spirit of the contest" from the frame of reference of LP stations? I say no--it's just another category.
|
| |
|
Time for change with packet
|
Reply
|
|
by ae9b on July 17, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I have been thinking....
One of these upcoming contest, I might just get on the packet network and in an attempt to help some of the rare DX which tends to get on during the contest find me, (it would help their score) spot myself.. lots and lots and lots of times maybe 1000 times during the course of a 48 hour contest. It is NOT a violation of FCC rules. It is a violation of contest rules. If you don't enter the contest, you can do what you wish. Does this create an unfair advantage? To who? If I'm not interested in winning any wallpaper or plaque then there is no rules violation right? I bet there will be lots of griping about that huh? Have fun with your hobby!
Tom
|
| |
|
Time for change with packet
|
Reply
|
|
by AA4LR on July 18, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Jari,
You start off with an excellent point -- why are contesters ignoring the contest rules?
I don't believe there's a huge number here, but clearly a not insignificant number of contesters either choose to ignore these rules, or in most recent instances, use subterfuge to get around them. (eg self-spotting by posting via the web with another's callsign)
It doesn't seem to me that the rules regarding packet are either unjust nor meaningless. The use of packet clearly defines outside assistance. While such use may not create any advantage for the top contest scorers (indeed, currently theory is that it may be a disadvantage -- single op, distracted) it can create an advantage for those with more modest skills.
The traffic light analogy is specious. Traffic signals have an implied contract with the motorist -- they regulate the traffic flow in order to avoid accidents and congestion. But a traffic light that never changes is clearly broken, and the motorist shouldn't be held accountable for violating the laws when the equipment isn't functioning.
There are some contesters who argue that packet ought to be outlawed entirely. Most of these suggestions come from experienced contesters who view packet as offering little, if any strategic advantage -- particularly in view of its abuses.
You are correct that the DXing community has embraced packet with open arms. Because of the intersection between DXing and contesting, it makes sense for contest organizers to allow for this activity. And they do -- that's the main reason we have rules for spotting network use in most contests. It would be a bad idea for the contesting community to alienate a portion of the DXing community by trying to outlaw packet, since many DXers later become contesters. So we accomodate it with the current rules.
You lost me with the argument that packet ought to be usable with low or QRP power. Depending on the contest, most that have separate categories for Single Operator - LP or QRP also have categories for Single Operator Assisted - LP or QRP. The only one I'm aware of that does not is the ARRL Sweepstakes, where spotting networks are permitted in the Multioperator (M) and Unlimited (U) categories. Of course, ARRL SS doesn't distinguish between Multioperator LP or QRP, either.
Even contests that do not have power categories often recognize lower-power efforts with footnotes in the listings. So, there's no reason that participants are limited from the use of spotting networks if they run Low or QRP power.
And, yes, there are many areas of the world that have limited or not spotting network coverage. The vast majority of hams don't live in those areas, but much of the desirable DX does! That's a problem. Do we really want to change the rules in such a way that might discourage participation by rare DX? NO! That's why we have a separate category that allows spotting network.
Your arguments about equalization of the sport seem to have gotten far, far afield from your initial question -- why are contestors ignoring rules regarding packet? It's a very nice straw man you've knocked down there, but it doesn't support your conclusions.
Lifting the prohibition on self-spotting (along with just allowing packet for everyone), would probably incapacitate the spotting network. Imagine, if you will, every equipped station will be sending out a spot every 1-5 minutes -- and for M/M or M/2 stations, this might involve multiple spots for multiple bands!
I don't get your point about disqualification of rare DX. History has shown that contest judges tend to disqualify infrequently, and usually only for the most egregious cases of cheating.
Or are you implying that if we enforce the rules as written, we should turn a blind eye toward the rare DX? Does that mean the rules don't apply if I have a rare enough prefix? Sir, that is just plain WRONG.
Your suggestions would send the bands into chaos -- carte blanc to use packet, excessive power. What's next? Should we also ignore the rules regarding signals per band?
Your solution is too radical. The issues regarding packet just aren't that broken. Only two things need to happen to make the existing rules work a) people need to select the correct category when they use Packet, b) those who self-spot need to be disqualified.
I think we're most of the way there on a), and with a bit of education, we might just get there on b). Then we can get back to worrying about other problems, like running lots of SOUP....
|
| |
|
RE: Time for change with packet
|
Reply
|
|
by OH3BU on July 21, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I am glad that there has been at least one reader (AA4LR) who has understood the point I was trying to make with my little article that I wrote to amuse the contesting community. The article was written tongue in the cheek but it did have a hidden agenda that was basically a serious one.
For clarity, I want to offer an explanation for the issue raised by him as quoted below:
"I don't get your point about disqualification of rare DX. History has shown that contest judges tend to disqualify infrequently, and usually only for the most egregious cases of cheating.
Or are you implying that if we enforce the rules as written, we should turn a blind eye toward the rare DX? Does that mean the rules don't apply if I have a rare enough prefix? Sir, that is just plain WRONG."
In fact, I was only exaggarating the well known and often forgotten fact that being in a rare DX location is much more profitable to the score than using packet is.
73
-Jari, OH3BU
|
| |
|
Time for change with packet
|
Reply
|
|
by n2ea on July 27, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Improper packet use is a non-problem, or at least a self-correcting one, over time. Although it's a 'so-what?' discussion, the author raised an interesting secondary point:
On the topic of levelling the playing field, it might be interesting for contesting if there were a 100w and a vertical class. Consider how many more stations would be encouraged to play.
Yuri (k3bu) raised the analogy of racing sailboats with auxiliary engines. One doesn't use the motor during a race. To extend that analogy further, modern sailboat racing uses a handicap system to 'level the playing field'. Even the slowest boats can compete,
and clubs create rating-classes, to manage fleet size and match up boat capabilities.
SOA adds a level of interest to radio contesting.
SOLPV (low power,vert) or SOLPW (wires) might be an interesting entry level class for newbies.
And thus, the pot has been stirred once again.
Jim/N2EA
|
| |
|
RE: Time for change with packet
|
Reply
|
|
by G4iFB on August 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Gentlemen,
Interesting thread! It's clearly got you all thinking. Here's a bit more analysis to keep your brain juices flowing.
I agree with other comments in this thread that DXcluster cheating is not widespread, and is not the most serious problem in any case.
As a professional auditor, I recogise 3 main classes of controls against cheating in contests:
1. Preventive controls [controls to prevent or deter cheating]
- self-restraint (the biggest control of all is that entrants generally comply with the rules and avoid going [too far] over the top e.g. with excessive power, multi-op/assistance, self-spotting etc., especially if they fear being inspected or spurned by other hams)
- carefully, precisely and formally defined contest rules, honed over the years to specifically address previous cheats
- logs formally submitted (the 'official entry' can't be changed by the entrant)
- logs submitted quite soon after the event (limits the amount of post-contest log tweaking)
- entrants pre-register, stating what category they will enter and giving station location and other details to permit inspection during the event (this happens in our Field Days at least)
- official, independent adjudication of all entries against the rules
2. Detective controls [controls to identify cheats]
- logs are informally checked for reasonableness and quality (e.g. hand-written logs with convenient smudges when the entrant could not identify the correct character or number sent)
- logs are formally checked for accuracy and completeness (now computerised e.g. dupe checks, hours operated)
- logs are formally cross-checked for accuracy and completeness, including both sides of [some] QSOs (WAE's QTC feature is an interesting way to increase QSO cross-checking, but manual or computerised callsign databases have been used for decades in most contests)
- "unassisted" logs checked statistically against DXcluster records for significant correlations
- DXcluster records and IP logs checked for self-spotters etc.
- stations inspected by adjudicators during the contest
3. Corrective controls [controls to stop identified cheats from getting away with it]
- scores are reduced for log 'mistakes', sometimes with additional penalties for obvious attempts to cheat
- cheats are disqualified or asked to "reclassify" their entries
- cheats are publicly humiliated in the write-ups
- known/suspected cheats are subjected to additional scrutiny in future (this may not be officially acknowledged but happens in practice - contest committees take a more careful look at stations whose scores appear to exceed their station or operator capabilities, or who have been caught or 'nearly caught' cheating in previous contests)
- cheats are spurned by the ham community (in my view, this is probably the most powerful control other than self-restraint - I know of one UK DXer who was [accused of] cheating and had literally years of quiet persecution by other UK hams until his death).
Of these, the biggest control gap in my opinion, now that we are almost fully computerised, is that logs can be massaged by entrants after the event but before they are submitted. To cut this down and encourage entrants to send their raw logs immediately, I would propose an additonal rule whereby final post-checking scores are automatically reduced by, say, 2-5% for every day that passes between the end of the contest and the entry being received by the adjudicators. This looks fairer to me than simply reducing the deadline (the Luddites still need time to make their hand-written logs legible and post them in!!). I would also encourage more station inspections, requiring pre-contest registrations at least for those who anticipate achieving a top-ten position in any category: in my opinion, the *possibility* of inspection is a significant deterrent and a constant reminder of the rules.
73
Gary G4iFB "When it works, work it"
|
| |
|
Time for change with packet
|
Reply
|
|
by N2WN on March 26, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I don't see any real advantage to packet spots. Perhaps to see if there is an opening on a particular band to your area? One could go back to the age old (well 1970's when I last contested) arguement about rate versus multipliers, can you pick it quick enough? Frankly, I was thrilled with the rate and multipliers I worked all by my lonesome. I think that there are many who feel the way I do, and for those that don't, there is the assisted category. When it comes to cheating, there are probably more folks running over the legal power limit for a category and gaining an edge that way than by using packet spots. Just my opinion... The vast majority of the folks in contests are having fun, and competing against themselves.
|
| |
|
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.
|
