|
This statement was made on the FTDMC Facebook group:
"Now days if the ARRL finds you are using automation they will strip you of any awards they believe you used it for."
Is this true? I know you aren't supposed to claim credit for any QSO involving automation, but that's a far step from taking away an award which was otherwise earned honestly.
73,
Ken, AB1J
|
|
|
Steven Rutledge <steven.t.rutledge@...>
I don't think there is anything to worry about. The ARRL is very
busy and I doubt they have time to investigate and prove what you
are using for operating software. I'm curious though? What
"automation" are they speaking of? I'm not aware of any software
that makes automatic QSOs although I guess it could be done.
Steve, N4JQQ
DXAC, Delta
On 9/24/2021 12:18 PM, Kermit Lehman
via groups.arrl.org wrote:
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
This statement
was made on the FTDMC Facebook group:
"Now
days if the ARRL finds you are using automation they
will strip you of any awards they believe you used
it for."
Is this true? I know
you aren't supposed to claim credit for any QSO
involving automation, but that's a far step from
taking away an award which was otherwise earned
honestly.
73,
Ken, AB1J
|
|
|
Ria, N2RJ
WSJT-z and MSHV are two that I know of. I know of a few ops who use them in full auto and even unattended mode.
Enforcement of the rule? For me it’s about knowing that my plaque on the wall was obtained with honor, I didn’t break any of the rules, didn’t operate illegally etc. I don’t know if the desk has taken action against anyone for fully automatic FT8 (which is absolutely against the rules) but that’s not my primary concern.
Ria N2RJ
I don't think there is anything to worry about. The ARRL is very
busy and I doubt they have time to investigate and prove what you
are using for operating software. I'm curious though? What
"automation" are they speaking of? I'm not aware of any software
that makes automatic QSOs although I guess it could be done.
Steve, N4JQQ
DXAC, Delta
This statement
was made on the FTDMC Facebook group:
"Now
days if the ARRL finds you are using automation they
will strip you of any awards they believe you used
it for."
Is this true? I know
you aren't supposed to claim credit for any QSO
involving automation, but that's a far step from
taking away an award which was otherwise earned
honestly.
73,
Ken, AB1J
|
|
|
Aside from the DXCC rule which is (arguably) ambiguously worded and difficult to prove and so enforce, plus the ethics and possible safety issues, the strongest argument for me is that robotic automation drains the fun out of digi-DXing. I don’t want to automate myself out of the loop. I enjoy being an integral and active part of my DXing system. If other ops choose to run full-auto 24x7, that makes it a bit easier for me to contact them when the path is open, although personally I’d prefer to know there is a licensed ham in the shack at the far end monitoring things. 73 Gary ZL2iFB
From: ARRL-Awards@... <ARRL-Awards@...> On Behalf Of Ria, N2RJ
Sent: 25 September 2021 07:48
To: ARRL-Awards@...
Subject: Re: [ARRL-Awards] ARRL v Robot WSJT-z and MSHV are two that I know of. I know of a few ops who use them in full auto and even unattended mode. Enforcement of the rule? For me it’s about knowing that my plaque on the wall was obtained with honor, I didn’t break any of the rules, didn’t operate illegally etc. I don’t know if the desk has taken action against anyone for fully automatic FT8 (which is absolutely against the rules) but that’s not my primary concern. I don't think there is anything to worry about. The ARRL is very busy and I doubt they have time to investigate and prove what you are using for operating software. I'm curious though? What "automation" are they speaking of? I'm not aware of any software that makes automatic QSOs although I guess it could be done. Steve, N4JQQ DXAC, Delta This statement was made on the FTDMC Facebook group: "Now days if the ARRL finds you are using automation they will strip you of any awards they believe you used it for." Is this true? I know you aren't supposed to claim credit for any QSO involving automation, but that's a far step from taking away an award which was otherwise earned honestly.
|
|
|
Steven Rutledge <steven.t.rutledge@...>
Ria and Gary, thank you. Yes, it is all about personal
integrity. When I first got in this game, DXing, many years ago,
I would hear some well-known DXers ask others to work a country
for them because they were at work, etc. I never understood
this. I don't see how anyone could get any satisfaction out of an
automatic Q or someone else using their call.
Contrary to what some may say, there is SOME skill involved with
FT8 depending on what's going on. :))))))))
73,
Steve, N4JQQ
On 9/24/2021 3:33 PM, Gary Hinson
wrote:
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Aside
from the DXCC rule which is (arguably) ambiguously worded
and difficult to prove and so enforce, plus the ethics and
possible safety issues, the strongest argument for me is
that robotic automation drains the fun out of digi-DXing. I
don’t want to automate myself out of the loop. I enjoy
being an integral and active part of my DXing system.
If other
ops choose to run full-auto 24x7, that makes it a bit easier
for me to contact them when the path is open, although
personally I’d prefer to know there is a licensed
ham in the shack at the far end monitoring things.
73
Gary
ZL2iFB
WSJT-z and
MSHV are two that I know of. I know of a few ops who use
them in full auto and even unattended mode.
Enforcement of
the rule? For me it’s about knowing that my plaque on the
wall was obtained with honor, I didn’t break any of the
rules, didn’t operate illegally etc. I don’t know if the
desk has taken action against anyone for fully automatic FT8
(which is absolutely against the rules) but that’s not my
primary concern.
I don't think there is
anything to worry about. The ARRL is very busy and I
doubt they have time to investigate and prove what you
are using for operating software. I'm curious
though? What "automation" are they speaking of? I'm
not aware of any software that makes automatic QSOs
although I guess it could be done.
Steve, N4JQQ
DXAC, Delta
This
statement was made on the FTDMC Facebook
group:
"Now
days if the ARRL finds you are using
automation they will strip you of any
awards they believe you used it for."
Is
this true? I know you aren't supposed
to claim credit for any QSO involving
automation, but that's a far step from
taking away an award which was
otherwise earned honestly.
|
|
|
David Shealy <davidshealy16@...>
Steve, Yes, I agree with you that using FT8 or FT4 from WSJT-X software does require skills and engagement in making and completing each contact or QSO…BTW, I have been using WSJT-X software since mid-2019 as about 60% of my contacts/QSO’s. David David L Shealy, K4KSV davidshealy16@...
On Sep 24, 2021, at 3:44 PM, Steven Rutledge <steven.t.rutledge@...> wrote:
Ria and Gary, thank you. Yes, it is all about personal
integrity. When I first got in this game, DXing, many years ago,
I would hear some well-known DXers ask others to work a country
for them because they were at work, etc. I never understood
this. I don't see how anyone could get any satisfaction out of an
automatic Q or someone else using their call.
Contrary to what some may say, there is SOME skill involved with
FT8 depending on what's going on. :))))))))
73,
Steve, N4JQQ
On 9/24/2021 3:33 PM, Gary Hinson
wrote:
Aside
from the DXCC rule which is (arguably) ambiguously worded
and difficult to prove and so enforce, plus the ethics and
possible safety issues, the strongest argument for me is
that robotic automation drains the fun out of digi-DXing. I
don’t want to automate myself out of the loop. I enjoy
being an integral and active part of my DXing system.
If other
ops choose to run full-auto 24x7, that makes it a bit easier
for me to contact them when the path is open, although
personally I’d prefer to know there is a licensed
ham in the shack at the far end monitoring things.
73
Gary
ZL2iFB
WSJT-z and
MSHV are two that I know of. I know of a few ops who use
them in full auto and even unattended mode.
Enforcement of
the rule? For me it’s about knowing that my plaque on the
wall was obtained with honor, I didn’t break any of the
rules, didn’t operate illegally etc. I don’t know if the
desk has taken action against anyone for fully automatic FT8
(which is absolutely against the rules) but that’s not my
primary concern.
I don't think there is
anything to worry about. The ARRL is very busy and I
doubt they have time to investigate and prove what you
are using for operating software. I'm curious
though? What "automation" are they speaking of? I'm
not aware of any software that makes automatic QSOs
although I guess it could be done.
Steve, N4JQQ
DXAC, Delta
This
statement was made on the FTDMC Facebook
group:
"Now
days if the ARRL finds you are using
automation they will strip you of any
awards they believe you used it for."
Is
this true? I know you aren't supposed
to claim credit for any QSO involving
automation, but that's a far step from
taking away an award which was
otherwise earned honestly.
|
|
|
Tom Schaefer - NY4I
A question and an observation…
I have scoured the WSJT-X documentation. Ria mentioned unattended mode. I cannot find a reference to that mode. In fact, the authors specifically did not include that and frown upon any code forks that would add it. What am I missing?
Note I’m not talking about WSPR which is a different animal.
For the observation, if you think FT8 is too easy, turn off auto-seq. When I first started using FT8, I did not realize there was an auto-seq mode ( since my prior experience was with JT65 which lacked that option). I was never as busy operating without auto sequencing. So you can easily up the workload and engagement factor with one simple checkbox.
Tom NY4I
|
|
|
Ria, N2RJ
Official WSJT-x doesn’t include any automation beyond auto sequence for a contact that was already initiated manually.
There are third party programs, one of them being a fork of WSJT. These offer full automation, you click a button and it will CQ or answer CQs fully automatically.
I will leave it at that because I don’t want to encourage the practice. But it is definitely “out there.”
It’s easy to tell who’s using one of the programs because when they send spots to pskreporter you see the app version they are using.
73 Ria N2RJ
A question and an observation…
I have scoured the WSJT-X documentation. Ria mentioned unattended mode. I cannot find a reference to that mode. In fact, the authors specifically did not include that and frown upon any code forks that would add it. What am I missing?
Note I’m not talking about WSPR which is a different animal.
For the observation, if you think FT8 is too easy, turn off auto-seq. When I first started using FT8, I did not realize there was an auto-seq mode ( since my prior experience was with JT65 which lacked that option). I was never as busy operating without auto sequencing. So you can easily up the workload and engagement factor with one simple checkbox.
Tom NY4I
|
|
|
K8TS
Good Afternoon Ria; I just read your comments below. First of all, I am totally against automation, especially when it applies to DXCC where it is expressly prohibited. You make the statement “one of them being a fork of WSJT” Can you elaborate on that phrase? I don’t understand what you mean by a “fork”. I do see a couple of FT8 stations that I can definitely say are not under direct operator control. You may reply to me off board if you wish. TU es 73, Dale K8TS K8TS@... Sent from Mail for Windows
From: Ria, N2RJSent: Wednesday, September 29, 2021 11:03 AM To: ARRL-Awards@...Subject: Re: [ARRL-Awards] ARRL v Robot Official WSJT-x doesn’t include any automation beyond auto sequence for a contact that was already initiated manually. There are third party programs, one of them being a fork of WSJT. These offer full automation, you click a button and it will CQ or answer CQs fully automatically. I will leave it at that because I don’t want to encourage the practice. But it is definitely “out there.” It’s easy to tell who’s using one of the programs because when they send spots to pskreporter you see the app version they are using. A question and an observation…
I have scoured the WSJT-X documentation. Ria mentioned unattended mode. I cannot find a reference to that mode. In fact, the authors specifically did not include that and frown upon any code forks that would add it. What am I missing?
Note I’m not talking about WSPR which is a different animal.
For the observation, if you think FT8 is too easy, turn off auto-seq. When I first started using FT8, I did not realize there was an auto-seq mode ( since my prior experience was with JT65 which lacked that option). I was never as busy operating without auto sequencing. So you can easily up the workload and engagement factor with one simple checkbox.
Tom NY4I
|
|
|
Ria, N2RJ
A fork is a term used in software development where someone takes a particular piece of software and then adds their own code to it and creates a new program. Think of it like a fork in the road. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fork_(software_development) Ria N2RJ
On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 1:10 PM K8TS <dalecole3502@...> wrote:
Good Afternoon Ria;
I just read your comments below. First of all, I am totally against automation, especially when it applies to DXCC where it is expressly prohibited.
You make the statement “one of them being a fork of WSJT”
Can you elaborate on that phrase? I don’t understand what you mean by a “fork”.
I do see a couple of FT8 stations that I can definitely say are not under direct operator control.
You may reply to me off board if you wish.
TU es 73,
Dale K8TS
K8TS@...
Sent from Mail for Windows
From: Ria, N2RJ
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2021 11:03 AM
To: ARRL-Awards@...
Subject: Re: [ARRL-Awards] ARRL v Robot
Official WSJT-x doesn’t include any automation beyond auto sequence for a contact that was already initiated manually.
There are third party programs, one of them being a fork of WSJT. These offer full automation, you click a button and it will CQ or answer CQs fully automatically.
I will leave it at that because I don’t want to encourage the practice. But it is definitely “out there.”
It’s easy to tell who’s using one of the programs because when they send spots to pskreporter you see the app version they are using.
73
Ria
N2RJ
On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 10:39 AM Tom Schaefer NY4I <thomasmschaefer@...> wrote:
A question and an observation…
I have scoured the WSJT-X documentation. Ria mentioned unattended mode. I cannot find a reference to that mode. In fact, the authors specifically did not include that and frown upon any code forks that would add it. What am I missing?
Note I’m not talking about WSPR which is a different animal.
For the observation, if you think FT8 is too easy, turn off auto-seq. When I first started using FT8, I did not realize there was an auto-seq mode ( since my prior experience was with JT65 which lacked that option). I was never as busy operating without auto sequencing. So you can easily up the workload and engagement factor with one simple checkbox.
Tom NY4I
|
|
|
"When you come to a fork in the road, take it." - Yogi Berra :-)
73, Zack W9SZ
On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 12:44 PM Ria, N2RJ < rjairam@...> wrote: A fork is a term used in software development where someone takes a
particular piece of software and then adds their own code to it and
creates a new program. Think of it like a fork in the road.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fork_(software_development)
Ria
N2RJ
On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 1:10 PM K8TS <dalecole3502@...> wrote:
>
> Good Afternoon Ria;
>
> I just read your comments below. First of all, I am totally against automation, especially when it applies to DXCC where it is expressly prohibited.
>
> You make the statement “one of them being a fork of WSJT”
>
> Can you elaborate on that phrase? I don’t understand what you mean by a “fork”.
>
> I do see a couple of FT8 stations that I can definitely say are not under direct operator control.
>
> You may reply to me off board if you wish.
>
> TU es 73,
>
> Dale K8TS
>
> K8TS@...
>
>
>
>
>
> Sent from Mail for Windows
>
>
>
> From: Ria, N2RJ
> Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2021 11:03 AM
> To: ARRL-Awards@...
> Subject: Re: [ARRL-Awards] ARRL v Robot
>
>
>
>
>
> Official WSJT-x doesn’t include any automation beyond auto sequence for a contact that was already initiated manually.
>
>
>
> There are third party programs, one of them being a fork of WSJT. These offer full automation, you click a button and it will CQ or answer CQs fully automatically.
>
>
>
> I will leave it at that because I don’t want to encourage the practice. But it is definitely “out there.”
>
>
>
> It’s easy to tell who’s using one of the programs because when they send spots to pskreporter you see the app version they are using.
>
>
>
> 73
>
> Ria
>
> N2RJ
>
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 10:39 AM Tom Schaefer NY4I <thomasmschaefer@...> wrote:
>
> A question and an observation…
>
> I have scoured the WSJT-X documentation. Ria mentioned unattended mode. I cannot find a reference to that mode. In fact, the authors specifically did not include that and frown upon any code forks that would add it. What am I missing?
>
> Note I’m not talking about WSPR which is a different animal.
>
>
> For the observation, if you think FT8 is too easy, turn off auto-seq. When I first started using FT8, I did not realize there was an auto-seq mode ( since my prior experience was with JT65 which lacked that option). I was never as busy operating without auto sequencing. So you can easily up the workload and engagement factor with one simple checkbox.
>
>
> Tom NY4I
>
>
>
>
|
|
|
Hi Dale, I can help with the definition of "fork". A program is considered a "fork" if a software developer takes the source code of one project, and starts independent development of that code, calling it a different project. This happens a lot on Open Sourced code. The source code is available, so someone takes it and starts a "fork" of it, doing independent development for whatever reason. LibreOffice is a fork of OpenOffice, so a fork is not always bad, just most of the time! Here is an interesting history of the LibreOffice fork: http://bitscloud.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Entrevista-Charles-h-Schulz-eng1.pdf73, and thanks, Dave (NK7Z) https://www.nk7z.netARRL Volunteer Examiner ARRL Technical Specialist, RFI ARRL Asst. Director, NW Division, Technical Resources
On 9/29/21 10:10 AM, K8TS wrote: Good Afternoon Ria;
I just read your comments below. First of all, I am totally against automation, especially when it applies to DXCC where it is expressly prohibited.
You make the statement “one of them being a fork of WSJT”
Can you elaborate on that phrase? I don’t understand what you mean by a “fork”.
I do see a couple of FT8 stations that I can definitely say are not under direct operator control.
You may reply to me off board if you wish.
TU es 73,
Dale K8TS
K8TS@... <mailto:K8TS@...>
Sent from Mail <https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows
*From: *Ria, N2RJ <mailto:rjairam@...>
*Sent: *Wednesday, September 29, 2021 11:03 AM
*To: *ARRL-Awards@... <mailto:ARRL-Awards@...>
*Subject: *Re: [ARRL-Awards] ARRL v Robot
Official WSJT-x doesn’t include any automation beyond auto sequence for a contact that was already initiated manually.
There are third party programs, one of them being a fork of WSJT. These offer full automation, you click a button and it will CQ or answer CQs fully automatically.
I will leave it at that because I don’t want to encourage the practice. But it is definitely “out there.”
It’s easy to tell who’s using one of the programs because when they send spots to pskreporter you see the app version they are using.
73
Ria
N2RJ
On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 10:39 AM Tom Schaefer NY4I <thomasmschaefer@... <mailto:thomasmschaefer@...>> wrote:
A question and an observation…
I have scoured the WSJT-X documentation. Ria mentioned unattended
mode. I cannot find a reference to that mode. In fact, the authors
specifically did not include that and frown upon any code forks that
would add it. What am I missing?
Note I’m not talking about WSPR which is a different animal.
For the observation, if you think FT8 is too easy, turn off
auto-seq. When I first started using FT8, I did not realize there
was an auto-seq mode ( since my prior experience was with JT65 which
lacked that option). I was never as busy operating without auto
sequencing. So you can easily up the workload and engagement factor
with one simple checkbox.
Tom NY4I
|
|
|
K8TS
Thanks I think it would be know to us non gurus as a “hack” LOL Have a good day! Dale K8TS Sent from Mail for Windows
From: Ria, N2RJSent: Wednesday, September 29, 2021 1:44 PM To: ARRL-Awards@...Subject: Re: [ARRL-Awards] ARRL v Robot A fork is a term used in software development where someone takes a particular piece of software and then adds their own code to it and creates a new program. Think of it like a fork in the road. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fork_(software_development) Ria N2RJ On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 1:10 PM K8TS <dalecole3502@...> wrote: > > Good Afternoon Ria; > > I just read your comments below. First of all, I am totally against automation, especially when it applies to DXCC where it is expressly prohibited. > > You make the statement “one of them being a fork of WSJT” > > Can you elaborate on that phrase? I don’t understand what you mean by a “fork”. > > I do see a couple of FT8 stations that I can definitely say are not under direct operator control. > > You may reply to me off board if you wish. > > TU es 73, > > Dale K8TS > > K8TS@... > > > > > > Sent from Mail for Windows > > > > From: Ria, N2RJ > Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2021 11:03 AM > To: ARRL-Awards@... > Subject: Re: [ARRL-Awards] ARRL v Robot > > > > > > Official WSJT-x doesn’t include any automation beyond auto sequence for a contact that was already initiated manually. > > > > There are third party programs, one of them being a fork of WSJT. These offer full automation, you click a button and it will CQ or answer CQs fully automatically. > > > > I will leave it at that because I don’t want to encourage the practice. But it is definitely “out there.” > > > > It’s easy to tell who’s using one of the programs because when they send spots to pskreporter you see the app version they are using. > > > > 73 > > Ria > > N2RJ > > > > On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 10:39 AM Tom Schaefer NY4I <thomasmschaefer@...> wrote: > > A question and an observation… > > I have scoured the WSJT-X documentation. Ria mentioned unattended mode. I cannot find a reference to that mode. In fact, the authors specifically did not include that and frown upon any code forks that would add it. What am I missing? > > Note I’m not talking about WSPR which is a different animal. > > > For the observation, if you think FT8 is too easy, turn off auto-seq. When I first started using FT8, I did not realize there was an auto-seq mode ( since my prior experience was with JT65 which lacked that option). I was never as busy operating without auto sequencing. So you can easily up the workload and engagement factor with one simple checkbox. > > > Tom NY4I > > > >
|
|
|
Not a hack in any way
shape or form. That would be saying JTDX is a hack which it is
not. It adds or added features not found in the original program.
Full Automation is not one of them. JTDX allows you to ignore
your country when calling CQ DX, allows you to ignore dupes and
many other things.
There are other ways the WSJT could be automated using other
programs. In the end does it really matter? The ARRL gets to
sell more awards.
I guess I don't see it as a big deal, much like DXpeditions having
secret scheds to work their home stations or clubs, people they
deem more special.
You do you and I will do me. I don't compare my awards to anyone
else. They are my awards earned my way.
W0MU
On 9/29/2021 3:34 PM, K8TS wrote:
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Thanks
I think it would be know to us non gurus
as a “hack” LOL
Have a good day!
Dale K8TS
Sent from Mail for Windows
A fork is a term used in software
development where someone takes a
particular piece of software and then adds
their own code to it and
creates a new program. Think of it like a
fork in the road.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fork_(software_development)
Ria
N2RJ
On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 1:10 PM K8TS
<dalecole3502@...> wrote:
>
> Good Afternoon Ria;
>
> I just read your comments below. First
of all, I am totally against automation, especially when it
applies to DXCC where it is expressly prohibited.
>
> You make the statement “one of them
being a fork of WSJT”
>
> Can you elaborate on that phrase? I
don’t understand what you mean by a “fork”.
>
> I do see a couple of FT8 stations that
I can definitely say are not under direct operator control.
>
> You may reply to me off board if you
wish.
>
> TU es 73,
>
> Dale K8TS
>
> K8TS@...
>
>
>
>
>
> Sent from Mail for Windows
>
>
>
> From: Ria, N2RJ
> Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2021
11:03 AM
> To: ARRL-Awards@...
> Subject: Re: [ARRL-Awards] ARRL v
Robot
>
>
>
>
>
> Official WSJT-x doesn’t include any
automation beyond auto sequence for a contact that was already
initiated manually.
>
>
>
> There are third party programs, one of
them being a fork of WSJT. These offer full automation, you
click a button and it will CQ or answer CQs fully
automatically.
>
>
>
> I will leave it at that because I
don’t want to encourage the practice. But it is definitely
“out there.”
>
>
>
> It’s easy to tell who’s using one of
the programs because when they send spots to pskreporter you
see the app version they are using.
>
>
>
> 73
>
> Ria
>
> N2RJ
>
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 10:39 AM Tom
Schaefer NY4I <thomasmschaefer@...> wrote:
>
> A question and an observation…
>
> I have scoured the WSJT-X
documentation. Ria mentioned unattended mode. I cannot find a
reference to that mode. In fact, the authors specifically did
not include that and frown upon any code forks that would add
it. What am I missing?
>
> Note I’m not talking about WSPR which
is a different animal.
>
>
> For the observation, if you think FT8
is too easy, turn off auto-seq. When I first started using
FT8, I did not realize there was an auto-seq mode ( since my
prior experience was with JT65 which lacked that option). I
was never as busy operating without auto sequencing. So you
can easily up the workload and engagement factor with one
simple checkbox.
>
>
> Tom NY4I
>
>
>
>
|
|
|
K8TS
Ken; Perhaps I did not use the correct language. I apologize to anyone I may have offended. I did not mean hack in a negative sense of the word. Hack to me means going into an already developed program and creating a diversion. Some people prefer to do this in a constructive form such as Ria described, others in more unscrupulous methods. As I mentioned, I am not a software guru. My “brags” to software are; learning to write a “loop” in DOS on a Color Computer to spell my name, and being able to insert an “autoexec batch” on a Radio Shack computer to have it boot up. So my terminology may not be 21st century. Those who earn awards pick the awards and the methods. The value of the accomplishment is in the eyes of the beholder. As long as they don’t trample the integrity of the award to the amateur community as a whole, each to their own. Cheers es 73, Dale K8TS Sent from Mail for Windows
From: W0MUSent: Wednesday, September 29, 2021 8:04 PM To: ARRL-Awards@...Subject: Re: [ARRL-Awards] ARRL v Robot Not a hack in any way shape or form. That would be saying JTDX is a hack which it is not. It adds or added features not found in the original program. Full Automation is not one of them. JTDX allows you to ignore your country when calling CQ DX, allows you to ignore dupes and many other things.
There are other ways the WSJT could be automated using other programs. In the end does it really matter? The ARRL gets to sell more awards.
I guess I don't see it as a big deal, much like DXpeditions having secret scheds to work their home stations or clubs, people they deem more special.
You do you and I will do me. I don't compare my awards to anyone else. They are my awards earned my way.
W0MU On 9/29/2021 3:34 PM, K8TS wrote: Thanks I think it would be know to us non gurus as a “hack” LOL Have a good day! Dale K8TS Sent from Mail for Windows A fork is a term used in software development where someone takes a particular piece of software and then adds their own code to it and creates a new program. Think of it like a fork in the road. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fork_(software_development) Ria N2RJ On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 1:10 PM K8TS <dalecole3502@...> wrote: > > Good Afternoon Ria; > > I just read your comments below. First of all, I am totally against automation, especially when it applies to DXCC where it is expressly prohibited. > > You make the statement “one of them being a fork of WSJT” > > Can you elaborate on that phrase? I don’t understand what you mean by a “fork”. > > I do see a couple of FT8 stations that I can definitely say are not under direct operator control. > > You may reply to me off board if you wish. > > TU es 73, > > Dale K8TS > > K8TS@... > > > > > > Sent from Mail for Windows > > > > From: Ria, N2RJ > Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2021 11:03 AM > To: ARRL-Awards@... > Subject: Re: [ARRL-Awards] ARRL v Robot > > > > > > Official WSJT-x doesn’t include any automation beyond auto sequence for a contact that was already initiated manually. > > > > There are third party programs, one of them being a fork of WSJT. These offer full automation, you click a button and it will CQ or answer CQs fully automatically. > > > > I will leave it at that because I don’t want to encourage the practice. But it is definitely “out there.” > > > > It’s easy to tell who’s using one of the programs because when they send spots to pskreporter you see the app version they are using. > > > > 73 > > Ria > > N2RJ > > > > On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 10:39 AM Tom Schaefer NY4I <thomasmschaefer@...> wrote: > > A question and an observation… > > I have scoured the WSJT-X documentation. Ria mentioned unattended mode. I cannot find a reference to that mode. In fact, the authors specifically did not include that and frown upon any code forks that would add it. What am I missing? > > Note I’m not talking about WSPR which is a different animal. > > > For the observation, if you think FT8 is too easy, turn off auto-seq. When I first started using FT8, I did not realize there was an auto-seq mode ( since my prior experience was with JT65 which lacked that option). I was never as busy operating without auto sequencing. So you can easily up the workload and engagement factor with one simple checkbox. > > > Tom NY4I > > > >
|
|
|
I think automation does matter for DXCC because: - It’s against the rules (unethical, another form of cheating – like excess power, DX remoting, fake QSOs/QSLs etc.).
- It is difficult to prove, or disprove (making it tricky to determine in order to enforce the rule, fairly)*
- It substantially devalues the DXCC Mixed, DXCC Digital and DXCC single band awards by making it much easier for unskilled ops to qualify (although automation is already available for CW and is technically feasible on Phone too).
- It essentially takes the operator out of the hobby as an active and essential part of the station: he/she becomes merely a station assembler or remote access purchaser, and a passive computer-minder. Frankly, it’s boring.
- It’s inevitable, given ongoing technology advances and the march of progress … which is a tricky one because tech advancement and self-training are core aims of amateur radio that arguably should be encouraged in the appropriate circumstances, not frowned upon or forbidden.
* Ria, not uploading decodes to PSKreporter simply requires a user config setting, disconnection from the Internet etc. Sneaky stealth-mode digisoftware could fake the version info sent too. However, that may be one of several indicators that a given station is robotic. Other indicators include: - Operating 24x7, or something close to that, sometimes on more than one band and/or mode at once (like SO2R on speed).
- Standardized messaging, without custom free-text messages and without the ability to respond to queries or challenges on-air (unless such capabilities are developed for the robots, which could happen taking us into the realm of the Turing test).
- Highly consistent message timing and sequencing, without the occasional operator fumble (computer glitches aside).
- Admission by the op, or evasive responses when asked about their use of automation, and perhaps unwillingness to undergo station inspections while operating.
- And … ?
I guess we could extend this list and start policing it, making it tougher, if not impossible, for cheaters to get away with it. Maybe also it’s worth considering other approaches besides compliance testing and enforcement actions, such as promoting ethics and encouraging hams to play by the rules. “It’s boring” is another aspect: most of us enter and remain in the hobby for fun and enjoyment. There’s not much fun in watching the computer rack up QSOs, even less in merely checking the log every so often to see what the robot has worked. So, perhaps QSO automation is self-limiting – and, taking a leaf out of the contesters’ book, it might be worth introducing separate DXCC categories or awards for those who choose to automate.
From: ARRL-Awards@... <ARRL-Awards@...> On Behalf Of W0MU
Sent: 30 September 2021 13:04
To: ARRL-Awards@...
Subject: Re: [ARRL-Awards] ARRL v Robot Not a hack in any way shape or form. That would be saying JTDX is a hack which it is not. It adds or added features not found in the original program. Full Automation is not one of them. JTDX allows you to ignore your country when calling CQ DX, allows you to ignore dupes and many other things.
There are other ways the WSJT could be automated using other programs. In the end does it really matter? The ARRL gets to sell more awards.
I guess I don't see it as a big deal, much like DXpeditions having secret scheds to work their home stations or clubs, people they deem more special.
You do you and I will do me. I don't compare my awards to anyone else. They are my awards earned my way.
W0MU On 9/29/2021 3:34 PM, K8TS wrote: Thanks I think it would be know to us non gurus as a “hack” LOL Have a good day! Dale K8TS Sent from Mail for Windows A fork is a term used in software development where someone takes a particular piece of software and then adds their own code to it and creates a new program. Think of it like a fork in the road. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fork_(software_development) Ria N2RJ On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 1:10 PM K8TS <dalecole3502@...> wrote: > > Good Afternoon Ria; > > I just read your comments below. First of all, I am totally against automation, especially when it applies to DXCC where it is expressly prohibited. > > You make the statement “one of them being a fork of WSJT” > > Can you elaborate on that phrase? I don’t understand what you mean by a “fork”. > > I do see a couple of FT8 stations that I can definitely say are not under direct operator control. > > You may reply to me off board if you wish. > > TU es 73, > > Dale K8TS > > K8TS@... > > > > > > Sent from Mail for Windows > > > > From: Ria, N2RJ > Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2021 11:03 AM > To: ARRL-Awards@... > Subject: Re: [ARRL-Awards] ARRL v Robot > > > > > > Official WSJT-x doesn’t include any automation beyond auto sequence for a contact that was already initiated manually. > > > > There are third party programs, one of them being a fork of WSJT. These offer full automation, you click a button and it will CQ or answer CQs fully automatically. > > > > I will leave it at that because I don’t want to encourage the practice. But it is definitely “out there.” > > > > It’s easy to tell who’s using one of the programs because when they send spots to pskreporter you see the app version they are using. > > > > 73 > > Ria > > N2RJ > > > > On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 10:39 AM Tom Schaefer NY4I <thomasmschaefer@...> wrote: > > A question and an observation… > > I have scoured the WSJT-X documentation. Ria mentioned unattended mode. I cannot find a reference to that mode. In fact, the authors specifically did not include that and frown upon any code forks that would add it. What am I missing? > > Note I’m not talking about WSPR which is a different animal. > > > For the observation, if you think FT8 is too easy, turn off auto-seq. When I first started using FT8, I did not realize there was an auto-seq mode ( since my prior experience was with JT65 which lacked that option). I was never as busy operating without auto sequencing. So you can easily up the workload and engagement factor with one simple checkbox. > > > Tom NY4I > > > >
|
|
|
Not a hack in any way shape or form. That would be saying JTDX is a hack which it is not.
+ JTDX is a hostile fork, meaning that the developers of WSJT-X actively oppose what the JTDX developers have been doing with the WSJT-X open source code base. Hostile forks are not illegal, but they discourage open source software development. Some software developers - including me - consider hostile forks to be unethical. I would no more use JTDX than I would use stolen property.
de AA6YQ
|
|
|
Gordon Beattie, W2TTT
Hi Folks!
I would simply like to see non-ear/mouth or finger modes evaluated separately. With a minimal amount of AI/ML, all advanced digital modes could be "humanized" enough to meet whatever detection criteria are imposed on automation. Building a solid station
at whatever level of trchnology is a personal endeavor. I seek only to improve on what I have done previously. Please note that I've met the requirements for WAS, WAC, VUCC and maybe DXCC, but never did the card collecting, logging, etc. so I haven't earned
them. It's never been a priority. Even during my most active VHF+ contesting periods hilltopping from FN30 on the Palisades in New Jersey, I was more likely to not bother submitting a log. Still don't bother as LoTW and even a detailed station log is not
a priority. WSJT-X has all my FT-8/4 contacts, but I've never looked through them.
Perhaps I should? Any constructive thoughts are welcome!
73,
Gordon Beattie, W2TTT
201.314.6964
W2TTT@ATT.NET
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
From: ARRL-Awards@... <ARRL-Awards@...> on behalf of Gary Hinson <Gary@...>
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2021 9:15:06 PM
To: ARRL-Awards@... <ARRL-Awards@...>
Subject: Re: [ARRL-Awards] ARRL v Robot
I think automation does matter for DXCC because:
- It’s against the rules (unethical, another form of cheating – like excess power, DX remoting, fake QSOs/QSLs etc.).
- It is difficult to prove, or disprove (making it tricky to determine in order to enforce the rule, fairly)*
- It substantially devalues the DXCC Mixed, DXCC Digital and DXCC single band awards by making it much easier for unskilled ops to qualify (although automation is already available
for CW and is technically feasible on Phone too).
- It essentially takes the operator out of the hobby as an active and essential part of the station: he/she becomes merely a station assembler or remote access purchaser, and
a passive computer-minder. Frankly, it’s boring.
- It’s inevitable, given ongoing technology advances and the march of progress … which is a tricky one because tech advancement and self-training are core aims of amateur radio
that arguably should be encouraged in the appropriate circumstances, not frowned upon or forbidden.
* Ria, not uploading decodes to PSKreporter simply requires a user config setting, disconnection from the Internet etc. Sneaky stealth-mode digisoftware could fake the version info sent too. However,
that may be one of several indicators that a given station is robotic. Other indicators include:
- Operating 24x7, or something close to that, sometimes on more than one band and/or mode at once (like SO2R on speed).
- Standardized messaging, without custom free-text messages and without the ability to respond to queries or challenges on-air (unless such capabilities are developed for the
robots, which could happen taking us into the realm of the Turing test).
- Highly consistent message timing and sequencing, without the occasional operator fumble (computer glitches aside).
- Admission by the op, or evasive responses when asked about their use of automation, and perhaps unwillingness to undergo station inspections while operating.
- And … ?
I guess we could extend this list and start policing it, making it tougher, if not impossible, for cheaters to get away with it.
Maybe also it’s worth considering other approaches besides compliance testing and enforcement actions, such as promoting ethics and encouraging hams to play by the rules. “It’s boring” is another aspect:
most of us enter and remain in the hobby for fun and enjoyment. There’s not much fun in watching the computer rack up QSOs, even less in merely checking the log every so often to see what the robot has worked. So, perhaps QSO automation is self-limiting
– and, taking a leaf out of the contesters’ book, it might be worth introducing separate DXCC categories or awards for those who choose to automate.
From: ARRL-Awards@... <ARRL-Awards@...>
On Behalf Of W0MU
Sent: 30 September 2021 13:04
To: ARRL-Awards@...
Subject: Re: [ARRL-Awards] ARRL v Robot
Not a hack in any way shape or form. That would be saying JTDX is a hack which it is not. It adds or added features not found in the original program. Full Automation is not one of them. JTDX allows you to
ignore your country when calling CQ DX, allows you to ignore dupes and many other things.
There are other ways the WSJT could be automated using other programs. In the end does it really matter? The ARRL gets to sell more awards.
I guess I don't see it as a big deal, much like DXpeditions having secret scheds to work their home stations or clubs, people they deem more special.
You do you and I will do me. I don't compare my awards to anyone else. They are my awards earned my way.
W0MU
On 9/29/2021 3:34 PM, K8TS wrote:
Thanks
I think it would be know to us non gurus as a “hack” LOL
Have a good day!
Dale K8TS
Sent from
Mail for Windows
A fork is a term used in software development where someone takes a
particular piece of software and then adds their own code to it and
creates a new program. Think of it like a fork in the road.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fork_(software_development)
Ria
N2RJ
On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 1:10 PM K8TS
<dalecole3502@...> wrote:
>
> Good Afternoon Ria;
>
> I just read your comments below. First of all, I am totally against automation, especially when it applies to DXCC where it is expressly prohibited.
>
> You make the statement “one of them being a fork of WSJT”
>
> Can you elaborate on that phrase? I don’t understand what you mean by a “fork”.
>
> I do see a couple of FT8 stations that I can definitely say are not under direct operator control.
>
> You may reply to me off board if you wish.
>
> TU es 73,
>
> Dale K8TS
>
>
K8TS@...
>
>
>
>
>
> Sent from Mail for Windows
>
>
>
> From: Ria, N2RJ
> Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2021 11:03 AM
> To:
ARRL-Awards@...
> Subject: Re: [ARRL-Awards] ARRL v Robot
>
>
>
>
>
> Official WSJT-x doesn’t include any automation beyond auto sequence for a contact that was already initiated manually.
>
>
>
> There are third party programs, one of them being a fork of WSJT. These offer full automation, you click a button and it will CQ or answer CQs fully automatically.
>
>
>
> I will leave it at that because I don’t want to encourage the practice. But it is definitely “out there.”
>
>
>
> It’s easy to tell who’s using one of the programs because when they send spots to pskreporter you see the app version they are using.
>
>
>
> 73
>
> Ria
>
> N2RJ
>
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 10:39 AM Tom Schaefer NY4I
<thomasmschaefer@...> wrote:
>
> A question and an observation…
>
> I have scoured the WSJT-X documentation. Ria mentioned unattended mode. I cannot find a reference to that mode. In fact, the authors specifically did not include that and frown upon any code forks that would
add it. What am I missing?
>
> Note I’m not talking about WSPR which is a different animal.
>
>
> For the observation, if you think FT8 is too easy, turn off auto-seq. When I first started using FT8, I did not realize there was an auto-seq mode ( since my prior experience was with JT65 which lacked that
option). I was never as busy operating without auto sequencing. So you can easily up the workload and engagement factor with one simple checkbox.
>
>
> Tom NY4I
>
>
>
>
|
|
|
I would simply like to see non-ear/mouth or finger modes evaluated separately
+ ARRL and CQ awards have separate categories for CW, Phone, and Digital modes.
de AA6YQ
|
|
|
CDXC (Chiltern DX Club, not the Clipperton one) came up with the idea of “Machine Generated Mode”. MGM. I think I’d prefer ‘computer’ over machine (CGM), although I understand the original computers were the ranked rows of ladies busily calculating missile trajectories. 73 Gary ZL2iFB
From: ARRL-Awards@... <ARRL-Awards@...> On Behalf Of Dave AA6YQ
Sent: 30 September 2021 15:43
To: ARRL-Awards@...
Subject: Re: [ARRL-Awards] ARRL v Robot I would simply like to see non-ear/mouth or finger modes evaluated separately
+ ARRL and CQ awards have separate categories for CW, Phone, and Digital modes. de AA6YQ
|
|
|
