No FT8 ROBOTS allowed in ARRL Contests!

Discussion in 'Ham Radio Discussions' started by WA6MHZ, Aug 13, 2019.

ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: MessiPaoloni-1
ad: K5AB-Elect-1
ad: Left-3
ad: Left-2
ad: L-MFJ
ad: Subscribe
  1. W3WN

    W3WN Ham Member QRZ Page

    Yes, I know what he wrote in Post #11. But what he wrote there isn’t phrased as a rule would be, it is simply an expression of what his desire is, of what the rule should do... not what it should say.

    Funny thing is, he is so convinced that I am so “pro” ARRL that I am blind to their flaws. On the contrary, I am very much aware that “they” are not perfect and that mistakes can be made. What he is missing is that if he can actually WRITE a rule in such a way as to achieve his goals, which may just be a better and more accurate phrasing of the intent of the rule, I may just be all for it.

    Therefore, the point remains... can he actually WRITE the clear & concise rule that he wants the ARRL to use? Or something close to it? Or, is he going to be the old man sitting in the back of the meeting room, complaining about everything but contributing nothing?

    That he is now making wisecracks about my motives, and pointing to posts that don’t actually answer the question (and that set people off on the proverbial wild goose chase trying to find an answer that doesn’t exist)... well, no point in further belaboring the obvious.
     
  2. K1VSK

    K1VSK Ham Member QRZ Page

    Guess we triggered a nerve.
     
    KK5JY likes this.
  3. WZ7U

    WZ7U Ham Member QRZ Page

  4. N2EY

    N2EY Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    "He had a hat"
     
  5. AB9H

    AB9H Ham Member QRZ Page

    That’s where focus should be, instead of trying to “curb” someone’s desire for automatization and programming, let’s define part of the spectrum, they are to use! Besides that, ARRL just need to introduce new, separate category in their contest rules, because it doesn’t make any good to anyone to try to restrict someone’s ability to automate his station! I’ve stated many times in the past, that there should have been a lot more focus on programming and automatization!Young people would be much more interested g into programming and automatization than cw using straight key! Nothing against cw, I use straight key from time to time.Even for logging programs, it would be much more, for hams at whole, if there was an option or category, that you get points, if you use your own logging program or part of it, instead what we have today, that 90% of hams use n1mm for logging ! Personally, I prefer my old MiLog, over n1mm! Don’t like all those options, where everything is pre set! Even discussed a long time ago, with MiLog owners, option, if it could be of “open type”! But, I didn’t have to much free time to explore, or study more of programming! There’s mortgage to pay, and to me, ham radio is a hobby, so, adjustments had to be made.
     
    Last edited: Aug 22, 2019
  6. N8OHU

    N8OHU Ham Member QRZ Page

    Sure; anyone that wants to run a fully automatic "robot" station can have exactly 50 Hz bandwidth on 40 meters.
     
  7. WF4W

    WF4W Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    It's a tough subject b/c you dont want to stifle innovation for those that do want automation. However, it needs to be balanced with 'fairness' - i.e. separate award & scoring system. I.e. - FT* contacts should not get the same # of points in field day or any other contest as CW or SSB. DXCC on digital does not hold the same weight as a DXCC CW/SSB/non-FT* digital. . .

    I know it's controversial to say an all FT*-based DXCC is not has valuable as an other mode but when automation can put you on the air 24/7, you can 'achieve' DXCC in a matter of weeks while not even being present. For many, that's not the spirit of ham radio - but for some, it IS and who are we to say differently? I dont expect ARRL to change their award system - the JT modes have been a boon for their award system by opening it up to a wider audience which equates to more revenue!

    Some will argue that automation is not prevalent but I disagree - i think it is increasing and it's causing trouble on the bands. Nearly everytime I get on FT8, I encounter a malfunctioning BOT. Yesterday I couldnt even call CQ without the same station coming back to me EVERY time despite completing a QSO twice. If it's not that, it's the one that responds to me but won't auto-sequence so it just keeps sending my report over and over and over for 30 minutes (i will NOT accept that there was a control op there just trying to complete the QSO). Same goes for the same 8-10 stations that are in my log dozens of times that continue to call me despite working mere days ago. . .

    So sure, let's allow these BOTS to operate but give them their own space to experiment in b/c many are experimenting and making it miserable for regular operators.
     
    WN1MB likes this.
  8. KP4SX

    KP4SX XML Subscriber QRZ Page

    That might be the best compromise. I don't care for fully automated QSOs but there are those that do and justify their style as innovative state-of-the-art. Whatever.
     
  9. W3WN

    W3WN Ham Member QRZ Page

    I have no issue with those who want to experiment with automation. It’s not for me, at least not at present, but I’m all for experimenting.

    But I agree with the principle that contests and awards ought to be achieved by human beings, not by automation. Which is not to say that we can’t also have similar awards or events for automation... just that the existing awards are based on the presumption that the operator is organic, not electronic. (Or Borg)
     
  10. KY5U

    KY5U Subscriber QRZ Page

    FT-8 me and I'll tell you.
     

Share This Page

ad: M2Ant-1