I would agree a separate DXCC award should be established for operators using remote stations that exceed a certain distance from the control point...like a station half way around the world. To me that has more impact on a level playing field and working rare ones than a mode like FT8...
Cecil K5DL Sent from my iPad > On Aug 2, 2019, at 7:37 PM, Cecil <[email protected]> wrote: > > Agree... > > Sent from my iPad > >> On Aug 2, 2019, at 7:29 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >>> On 2019-08-02 8:06 PM, GEORGE WALLNER wrote: >>> expand the DXCC program by creating a new category! FT-x is >>> sufficiently different to justify that. The skills need for FT-x are >>> different from those required for the traditional modes. >> >> Absolutely not! All modes used for DXCC have more skills in common >> than they have differences. There is more difference between CW and >> SSB than there is among RTTY, PSKxx, FTx - yet all count for DXCC >> Mixed. The key for any mode is knowing what band/time to choose >> (when propagation is most favorable) and understanding where the >> other station is listening. Those apply to FTx as much as CW or SSB. >> >> 73, >> >> ... Joe, W4TV >> >> >>> On 2019-08-02 8:06 PM, GEORGE WALLNER wrote: >>> Nobody is talking about "shutting" anything down. >>> Quite the opposite: expand the DXCC program by creating a new category! >>> FT-x is sufficiently different to justify that. The skills need for FT-x >>> are different from those required for the traditional modes. A new award >>> category would reflect that. >>> I would go further, but I don't think too far: >>> FT-x could be crucial to HAM radio's future. On a recent mini DXpedition I >>> asked a young and recently licensed HAM to operate FT-8. He said, sure, >>> give me a minute. He brought his laptop (not the one that was part of the >>> FT-8 station) and proceeded to operate FT-8, while using his laptop to >>> watch a movie and was looking at Facebook, and he was in chats with friends >>> (and HAM-s) on his phone. I was somewhat peeved, until I came to realize >>> that this is how the new generation lives: multi-threading using their >>> electronic devices. Unlike us, most of them are not willing to put on the >>> head-phones and concentrate on weak CW signals for hours, to the exclusion >>> of everything else. They don't live like that and they will not enjoy a >>> hobby like that. It is not my place to judge whether this is good or bad. >>> It is what it is. But to attract this new "multi-activity generation" to >>> HAM radio (an entire generation, not just the odd kid), the hobby must >>> offer a mode that is compatible with how they live. FT-8 is perfect for >>> that: it can be operated remotely from a smart-phone via an app, while >>> riding a bus or train and doing other things... And, yes, it can be >>> automated. >>> There will be nothing wrong with a young HAM working 100 countries in a >>> month while not even at his station. Good for him! Just don't mix his >>> achievement with mine. (Is RTTY really a digital mode? It seems to be very >>> analog these days.) >>> 73, >>> George, >>> AA7JV >>> On Fri, 2 Aug 2019 17:05:23 -0500 >>> Cecil <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPad >>>>> On Aug 2, 2019, at 4:45 PM, Cecil <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> This is nonsense.... >>>> >>>>> That is only possible if someone has modified the software and is >>>>> cheating the system...which I might add could be done with computers and >>>>> creative software writing to any of the digital modes including CW.... >>>> >>>> That is cheating and not grounds for disallowance from total DXCC >>>> participation for all users. >>>> >>>> Certainly I can do that for one QSO if I need to run to the bathroom or >>>> grab a quick cup of coffee etc....but if you believe for a second that the >>>> FT8 software is designed to crank it up, walk away for a couple hours and >>>> come back later to tally up your take as you describe you are showing your >>>> lack of knowledge of WSJT’s design. >>>> >>>> Am I suggesting that some are not doing that...no...not for a minute. >>>> Would I suggest that all DXers are running no more than the legal limit >>>> when chasing a new one or no more than 200 watts on 30 meters, or not >>>> using a remote station element to gain an unfair advantage to add a new >>>> one...nope. >>>> But it is happening... >>>> >>>> Should we shut down the entire awards system because the possibility >>>> exists that someone will cheat...I think not. >>>> >>>> I for one think you should rethink your article before submission Alan... >>>> >>>> Respectfully >>>> >>>> Cecil >>>> K5DL >>>>>>> On Aug 2, 2019, at 4:22 PM, Alan Swinger <[email protected]> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> . Since FT8 operators can walk away and not participate in QSOs, and >>>>>> come back after some other activity and see how many new countries and >>>>>> QSOs that the computer made, >>>> >>>> _________________ >>>> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector >>> _________________ >>> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector >> _________________ >> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector > > _________________ > Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector _________________ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
