FW: [HSMS/JT] Spring HSMS Contest?
> -----Original Message-----the
> From: Russ Pillsbury [mailto:k2txb@...]
> Sent: Friday, March 05, 2004 11:14 AM
> To: Joe Taylor; HSMS
> Cc: Randy Tipton
> Subject: RE: [HSMS/JT] Spring HSMS Contest?
> Hi Joe and all. Please go back to the spring 2003 rules. Brad makes
> points very well. During the December rally I tried to operate. Iwent
> with the idea that I would attempt to work all stations random firstand
> then later in the contest work them as assisted if necessary. Thatwas a
> dismal failure as I found very few stations who were really engagingin
> random activity. For 30 minutes I would call CQ and also listen forCQ's
> 140 (with second receiver) but, you know, it takes quite a while
> to attract an answer to a MS CQ and even if I got an answer, it wasoften
> near the end of the 30 minute period. I know it was OK to continue,but
> answering station did not hear me respond before the half hour and
> This happened several times.
> Then what? It is now an hour and a half before I can try random
> I went on PJ, looking to make skeds with the tougher stations to work,
> probably would not get on random anyway. But all of them were busy
> and working stations that were closer and easy to work. I could have
> skedded some of the easy ones, but I wanted to work them random...
> All in all I found the contest format unworkable - unless I wanted to
> up the idea of random contacts. After a 6 or so hours of this Isimply
> quit. I think I worked about a half dozen contacts. I didn't evenbother
> sending in a log.am
> WHAT HAPPENED TO the idea, often expressed here on the HSMS reflector,
> we were striving to end the dependence on PJ and other real time
> for our contests? It seems the rules have taken a step backwards. I
> sure some of you well remember the first few contests, back when wewere
> using HSCW. There were so few of us on the air back then that a dozenaccept,
> contacts in the contest (which ran for almost 2 weeks) was doing well.
> the activity we have today, I think we could eliminate the assisted
> altogether and still find a lot more stations to work than back then.
> it is not yet time for, or at least people are not yet willing to
> totally unassisted contest. But I think we should still be striving
> that goal, not backing away from it as the present rules do.
> As to the discussion of what constitutes an unassisted QSO, it is
> NO help of any kind. You find the station ON THE AIR, or he finds youON
> THE AIR. No monitoring PJ to see who is on the band (or worse whenthey
> on and where they are pointing). No telephone calls and no skeds
> those made prior to the contest for distances over the prescribedminimum.
> The only kind of assistance that should be allowed is for stations toor
> announce their CQ frequency and schedule, prior to the contest, on PJ
> One of the problems with a totally unassisted contest is lack of
> Going through my logs, I see many times more stations that I haveworked
> HSMS than the number who participate in the contests. Why don't these
> get on during the contests? There are bound to be many reasons, but
> that I have seen given numerous times is that they don't like the"mickey
> mouse rules" (their words, not mine). Another is that using PJ ispost
> due to all the extraneous chatter that goes on there. Every time I
> something like this I get private messages from people who prefer togive
> silent, publicly, but who state they have given up, or are about to
> on the contests because of the above reasons.
> Come on guys, let's try to move our segment of this hobby into the
> mainstream of other amateur contests. The Europeans do not have an
> category for their HSMS contests, and no other US contest does. The
> other contest that allows assisted contacts is the 10 Ghz and abovefor
> cumulative contest. There is a very good reason why it is necessary
> that contest, but with HSMS on 6 through 222 MHz it is very possibleto
> lots of random contacts. All it needs is persistence and perseverance
> the contesters. The contest will not be as fast paced, and there willnot
> be as many contacts made, but the end result will be much moresatisfying.
> And we would gain more respect from others who find an assistedcontest
> class bizarre.yahoo,
> 73, Russ K2TXB
> PS: If someone wants to cross post this to the other reflector on
> feel free. I tried to join that group twice and still am not joined,so I
> can't do it.[mailto:hsms-admin@...]On
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: hsms-admin@...
> > Behalf Of Joe Tayloran
> > Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 1:02 PM
> > To: HSMS
> > Cc: Randy Tipton
> > Subject: [HSMS/JT] Spring HSMS Contest?
> > Dear Ping Jockeys,
> > Spring is just around the corner, and in recent years this has meant
> > enjoyable activity known as the "North American Meteor ScatterRally."
> > A few of us (recently WA5UFH, N6ENU and K1JT) have organized theseand
> > events, and we're willing to do so again -- but we'd like some help.
> > Rules for the Spring 2003 Rally are posted on Tip's web site at
> > http://www.qsl.net/wa5ufh/Rally/2003eta.htm. Please read these over
> > then send email to me, with a copy to this reflector, giving youron
> > opinions on whether (and how) the rules might be improved.
> > In particular, I draw your attention to the following points:
> > 1. Last year, it was felt by many that operating in the unassisted
> > category was not very fruitful. Most stations were busy making QSOs
> > arranged on Ping Jockey; few were listening for or replying to CQs
> > the calling frequency, or for possible tailenders.Ping
> > 2. The rules did not make it clear whether "Read Only" access to
> > Jockey was permissible for Unassisted stations. Some did, some didnot.
> > 3. In December 2003 we tried out another system of rules and
> > the details of which are posted ataway
> > http://www.qsl.net/wa5ufh/Rally/nams_Dec_2003.htm. These rules did
> > with distinct Assisted and Unassisted categories, and insteadallowed
> > both types of QSOs by everyone, with specific rules about what4.5
> > constitutes a "random" QSO. Do you like these rules better?
> > 4. Finally, let me note that the new FSK441 modes in WSJT version
> > could lead to confusion unless we make specific recommendationsabout a
> > preferred mode for each band. If you gain experience with thesemodes
> > over the next two weeks, please send us your recommendation for thethrough
> > "default FSK441 mode" for each band.
> > The dates for this year's Rally will probably be 0000 UTC May 1
> > 0000 UTC May 10.
> > -- 73, Joe, K1JT