No Mike, the reality is Gary was incorrect and there is no need to go negative toward others who disagree as done in recent posts.
Read the details Mike, watch the video ... it's AUTOMATED. It's not cheating (per say) or is it? That's another interesting thought ... No need to wave your hands and create straw argument again on this. This is not about just another mode ... this is about changing the face of the hobby, and 'gutting' what others may still enjoy. So, now that the reality is the mode can and is being automated, what is the next step? As to the ARRL ban ... oh, yea that will work. (And yes Tree and a few others experimented with this years ago on CW) Billy, AA4NU > On August 2, 2019 at 6:10 PM W0MU Mike Fatchett <w...@w0mu.com> wrote: > > > So does this mean that everyone uses this cheat? No. > > By the way the ARRL has banned automatic unattended contacts from their > programs at the last board meeting. This means that the operator must > be instigating the contacts. > > Curiously many many many years ago, a fellow by the call of N6TR created > a "robot" that made Sweepstakes contacts. It was not very clever but it > was done. > > The only reason you can walk away with the stock program is that once > the qso starts the remaining sequences are indeed automated. So you can > walk away for about 30 seconds. I am pretty certain that this could > also be done with RTTY if it hasn't been already. > > So how many people are fully automated? 10, 100? 1000? How many > people uses power over their licensing? 10, 100, 1000? Both get you > booted from ARRL programs. Why is one ok and the other is not? Just > curious. > > What percent of ARRL participants are doing it right? Nearly everyone > other than the few outliers. If we can get a list of these automated > callsigns we could easily create a black list and not work them. > > I am appalled that people would attempt to strong arm DX peditions from > using a completely legal mode that nets more contacts. Amazing sick! > > W0MU > > On 8/2/2019 4:55 PM, Billy Cox wrote: > > Good Afternoon All, > > > > Gary, then explain this please? > > > > From http://edtk.de/ > > > > Start "Run Mode" In Run mode, CQs are called continuously, closed QSOs are > > logged automatically. After logged or timed out QSOs, the Program recalls > > CQ. After some unsuccessful CQ calls, the FT8 helper goes to sleep for > > about 2 minutes before he starts calling CQs again. - Run mode should > > always be operated with "Hold Tx Freq" > > > > Or this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byJyxYi4I8Q > > > > Thanks, > > > > Billy, AA4NU > > > > > >> On August 2, 2019 at 5:16 PM Gary - K7EK via Topband > >> <topband@contesting.com> wrote: > >> > >> > >> FT8 (and FT4) does not work like that. An operator must be present to > >> initiate contacts as well as logging completed contacts, and intervening > >> in case of sequencing problems, which can occur frequently. The FT modes > >> were intentionally written by K1JT to prevent fully automatic unattended > >> operation. PLEASE, know of what you speak instead of parroting what > >> ignorant cynics tell you. They have no life and nothing better to do than > >> bitch and whine and moan about things they haven't taken time to > >> understand. Do not believe everything you are told. You will be made to > >> look as foolish as the cynics as you enable them and propagate their > >> rubbish. I work with FT8 and FT4 daily (CW too! CWOPS 997 and FISTS #3951 > >> amongst others) and am a WSJTX and JTDX software tester. I know the JT > >> packages quite intimately and what's being propagated just ain't so (urban > >> legend?). Get a life! > >> > >> Best regards, > >> > >> Gary, K7EK > >> > >> Sent from BlueMail > >> > >> On Aug 2, 2019, 14:46, at 14:46, Cecil <chac...@cableone.net> wrote: > >>> > >>> Sent from my iPad > >>> > >>>> On Aug 2, 2019, at 4:22 PM, Alan Swinger <awswin...@earthlink.net> > >>> 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, this is unlike Digital modes where > >>> operators must remain engaged to make QSOs. Therefore, seems to me that > >>> such Computer-generated contacts should have a separate category in the > >>> current award systems since the operators are not directly involved in > >>> making the QSOs . . . call it Computer-Aided Digital or something more > >>> clever. No argument that skill is required to set up a station to make > >>> FT-8 contacts, but a different set than what those of us who work DXCC, > >>> Challenge, etc use on CW, RTTY, and SSB, including those towers, > >>> expensive equipment, skills, and years of hard work to get the new ones > >>> when there was NO FT-8 or similar modes! > >>>> So, I do not be begrudge the new low signal computer-aided modes, nor > >>> do I cast aspersions on the Ops who enjoy using them . . . even though > >>> I am unlikely to join their ranks, but the Ham community should not > >>> penalize those of us who used non-FT modes to get our hard earned > >>> awards by giving an unfair advantage to a new technology. We (Ham > >>> Radio) need the New Technology, but these modes are sufficiently > >>> different in many ways from the older modes that justifies a separate > >>> category in the award spectrum. Therefore, I urge the ARRL and the CQ > >>> Magazine leadership to establish a Digital award category that is > >>> separate and different from the current DXCC et al Digital criteria. > >>>> Alan Swinger K9MBQ > >>>> Charlottesville, VA > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>> From: rich_k...@gphilltop.com > >>>>> Sent: Aug 2, 2019 4:22 PM > >>>>> To: Harald Rester <harryres...@gmx.de> > >>>>> Cc: topband@contesting.com > >>>>> Subject: Re: Topband: 160 > >>>>> > >>>>> As ham radio changes there will remain at least a niche for CW, SSB, > >>> and > >>>>> RTTY and it's competitions. FT8 will supplement the bands , not > >>> supplant > >>>>> it, IMO. Do you think FT8, FT4 and whatever digital modes come along > >>> are > >>>>> the future or will something else take its place? Who knows... time > >>> and > >>>>> technology moves on. Maybe it might attract some of the Millennials > >>> to > >>>>> fill in the void by us Baby Boomers who will all too soon be making. > >>>>> Let's set a good example for them to follow. > >>>>> > >>>>> Rich K7ZV > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> On 2019-08-02 12:42 pm, Harald Rester wrote: > >>>>>> Think about the time *we all *could have been on the air, while > >>> staring > >>>>>> at our screens, typing and reading. I make QSY to the shack - Hpe > >>> CU! > >>>>>> Harry, DH1NBE > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Am 02.08.2019 um 21:26 schrieb uy0zg: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I do not propose stopping the FT8. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> just compete with each other. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> But keep in mind - Arnold will be the first -)): > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>> https://www.alamy.com/arnold-schwarzenegger-terminator-2-judgment-day-1991-image66516208.html > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> --- > >>>>>>> Nick, UY0ZG > >>>>>>> http://www.topband.in.ua > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> W0MU Mike Fatchett писал 2019-08-02 21:52: > >>>>>>>> Ah so all FT8 users are cheaters. Does that mean that all > >>> Russian > >>>>>>>> hams use way more power than they should and their scores should > >>> not > >>>>>>>> count either? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> The real issue here is change. Ham radio has been in constant > >>> motion > >>>>>>>> and change since it started and I hope in continues that way well > >>>>>>>> after we are dead. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> So we better stop FT8 and protect VE1ZZ? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Sorry no. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Good day. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On 8/2/2019 12:45 PM, uy0zg wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Hello, Mike > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> This is how the world works so that humanity always has moral > >>>>>>>>> values. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> They must be protected. > >>>>>>>>> Example: > >>>>>>>>> in a few years, 334 VE1ZZ countries will lose their value. His > >>>>>>>>> achievements will be eaten by computer programs and robots .... > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> It is right ? > >>>>>>>>> Will there be many talents at 160 meters like Jack? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Will not be ! > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On the contrary - more and more stupidity and envy.... > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> --- > >>>>>>>>> Nick, UY0ZG > >>>>>>>>> http://www.topband.in.ua > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> W0MU Mike Fatchett писал 2019-08-02 18:24: > >>>>>>>>>> Cheating is cheating. How many people used remote stations, > >>>>>>>>>> exceeded > >>>>>>>>>> their power limits, etc. Singling out a mode because you are > >>>>>>>>>> upset > >>>>>>>>>> that it has taken away activity in your preferred mode is not > >>>>>>>>>> helpful > >>>>>>>>>> to the hobby. Not everyone that use FT8 cheats. Not > >>> everyone > >>>>>>>>>> that > >>>>>>>>>> uses a amp that exceeds their legal limit uses it in that > >>> fashion. > >>>>>>>>>> How can you guarantee that everyone on the "Honor Role" was 100 > >>>>>>>>>> percent honorable or even anyone that got DXCC did it right? > >>> You > >>>>>>>>>> can't so please stop singling out a mode you don't care for. > >>> We > >>>>>>>>>> get > >>>>>>>>>> it. Move on. It is here. Just like the Reverse beacon, > >>> packet > >>>>>>>>>> cluster, etc. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> We are all hams enjoying many aspects of the hobby. Can't we > >>> get > >>>>>>>>>> along? > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> W0MU > >>>>>>>>> _________________ > >>>>>>>>> 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 > >>>> _________________ > >>>> 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 _________________ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
