ad: chuckmartin

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: Left-3
ad: MessiPaoloni-1
ad: Left-2
ad: L-Geochron
ad: abrind-2
ad: L-MFJ
ad: HRDLLC-2
  1. KX4Z

    KX4Z Ham Member QRZ Page

    thank you. That confirms what i thought, but i wanted to be certain.
  2. KK5JY

    KK5JY Ham Member QRZ Page

    Well, that's a different matter altogether, because FCC's use of the term "automatic" means that specific case -- no operator at the control point. And since the range of frequencies where that is permitted on HF is pretty limited, it's not really an issue for contesting.
    If that is their goal (operator at the control point), they could just say that and be done.

    Interestingly, that provision isn't part of the existing rules, so the update they want may be that simple:
  3. K7TRF

    K7TRF Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    I'd agree that many things in this world that could be stated simply often are not. I think that happens a lot in cases where folks want to lend an air of professionalism or sound pseudo legal in the way they word things but it usually doesn't help.

    FWIW, I think this is the key part in their statement
    I'd say that's trying to get fancy with saying there has to be operators on both ends of the QSO directly initiating the call at roughly the same time. Yeah, it might have been simpler to say you can't walk away from your rig and still score contest points or you can't use computer routines that will let you go to sleep while your computer racks up points but it seems pretty clear to me what they're getting at.
    Last edited: Aug 14, 2019
    KP4SX likes this.
  4. KK5JY

    KK5JY Ham Member QRZ Page

    Since the original objection was "robots," you are probably right on -- at least as far as their intent. And that really should make it easy enough to just say, "there has to be a control operator at the control point for all QSOs" or something similar.

    If their goal is to make sure the user actually clicks or taps something somewhere for each QSO, they're going to have to get a lot more... wordy. It is trivial to update WSJT-X to run indefinitely in FT-4 mode, doing both S&P and CQ run simultaneously, so if a control operator present at the control point isn't good enough for what they want, they're going to have to find a new way to say exactly that.
    Definitely. :)
  5. VK4HAT

    VK4HAT Ham Member QRZ Page

    In the bigger contests anyone claiming a winning score has to have recorded every contact to audio file. It would not be hard for the ARRL to do the same and ask for video recording of all FT8 contacts. A camera over the shoulder of the operator would show definitively that he was clicking the mouse button and not a clicker.

    You only have to require it from anyone claiming a top 5 score. No video, no trophy, log made observation. So if you are like me and not going to win, or dont care if you get a participation trophy, then it does not effect us, just the bigger contest stations.
    Last edited: Aug 14, 2019
    WF4W likes this.
  6. WD0BCT

    WD0BCT Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    Which makes contest awards worth every cent of the entry fee!
  7. KX4Z

    KX4Z Ham Member QRZ Page

    Well it all makes me less interested.
  8. K1OIK

    K1OIK XML Subscriber QRZ Page

    If the honor system makes sense for power etc. (and it does, most hams are honest) why do QSL's and QSO confirmations have security greater than most bank accounts?
    KK5JY likes this.
  9. KC3RN

    KC3RN Ham Member QRZ Page

    Interesting point. I didn't think of that, since I have zero experience with open source code..... Along the same line, FT-4 also has an automatic logging option when in contest mode. If you automate the S&P function, I believe the auto logging function would follow. That could be a problem...
  10. AG4RT

    AG4RT Platinum Subscriber Platinum Subscriber QRZ Page

    Like many things political, which I won't name, it gives people a warm gooey sense of accomplishment to have done something even if that something provides no tangible benefit over having done nothing.
    K4AGO, KI7HSB, WZ7U and 1 other person like this.

Share This Page