When is a S2S not a S2S?

Old Reflector
21

In reply to M1MAJ:

Whatever it says in your personal log, the online log for both chasers and activators merely requires date, time, callsigns, summit, band and mode. No mention of reports, although presumably you can put this under remarks if you so wish. Logically, then, as long as all columns in the online log can be filled in correctly then a valid contact has taken place even if there has been no mention of a report during the contact. The data that goes into the database is what it is all about, the rest is irrelevant, so the essential report as such merely consists of a summit one way and a roger the other!

Personally I regret the way people allow themselves to be under the tyrrany of the S-meter. We all know that you can have a perfectly good contact on V/UHF with little or nothing showing on the S-meter, so unless I am being asked for a comparative report I go back to the good old days and report readability and signal strength by ear without so much as glancing at the S-meter.

73

Brian G8ADD

22

In reply to G8ADD:

Personally I regret the way people allow themselves to be under the
tyrrany of the S-meter.

Agreed… especially as more often than not you receive a “5 and 9” report when you know damn well it isn’t

23

In reply to G8ADD:

Logically, then, as long as all columns
in the online log can be filled in correctly then a valid contact has
taken place even if there has been no mention of a report during the
contact.

I think that’s a red herring. I could put all sorts of bogus stuff in the database but it wouldn’t make it a valid contact. We’re talking about the conditions under which it is right and proper for a person who wishes to abide by the rules and spirit of SOTA to make a database entry.

The “report” rule is actually a useful guideline for when to count a contact under marginal conditions. Without it, I might have been tempted to claim contacts which in all honesty I did not actually make as a proper 2-way contact.

24

In reply to M1MAJ:

You missed the word “correctly”!

73

Brian G8ADD

25

In reply to M1MAJ:

What it says to me is that if the exchange is not completed correctly
the activator can count the contact but the chaser may not. It’s hard
to tell whether this is actually the intention behind the different
wording in the two sections. I tend to assume that it was a deliberate
decision intended to reduce the burden on activators.

That is a good point, I hadn’t thought of that. Perhaps someone from the MT can clarify that point.
As a Chaser I normally put the Signal Report I give in the Notes since I consider the Notes to be for my benefit and I am more interested in what I am receiving. I very rarely make a note of the Report I am given unless it is unusual in some way. Although without it being mandatory for both (or indeed any) reports to be entered in the Database how would anyone else know if the “exchange” was completed correctly?.
I am still finding my feet as an Activator, so I’m interested in what others consider ‘correct operating practice’. Whether I take any notice is another matter, as I think I have said before on here I don’t particularly go out of my way to do a ‘SOTA Activation’, I just happen to like taking Radios up hills with me and having a few QSO’s while I am up there. I use the SOTA references (&/or WOTA around here) just to let people know where I am and for the benefit of any Chasers.

73,
Colin.

26

In reply to G8ADD:

You missed the word “correctly”!

Not really. It all boils down to what “correctly” means in this context.

27

In reply to M1MAJ:

Now I would have thought that “correctly” was unambiguous.

73

Brian G8ADD

28

In reply to M1MAJ:

The “report” rule is actually a useful guideline for when to
count a contact under marginal conditions. Without it, I might have
been tempted to claim contacts which in all honesty I did not actually
make as a proper 2-way contact.

I agree entirely Martyn. Historically is not the exchange of callsigns and reports considered to be the minimum for a contact? It is totally irrelevant what the database requires.

I would have thought that it is essential to exchange a piece of information that is not previously known. Names, locations and calls, etc are all available from spotting websites, the internet, etc., so the exchange of reports must be the key component. I know that I have spent time on many a summit to ensure that reports are exchanged BOTH ways and not once have I ever come across the attitude that it doesn’t matter. In fact on occasion chasers have had to admit they can’t read the report from me due to local noise or some other factor and the QSO has been regarded as incomplete, both by me and by them.

73, Gerald G4OIG

29

In reply to G4OIG:

Certainly the exchange of reports is an historical requirement. Furthermore I am not arguing against the exchange of reports, those that have worked me know that I always give and acknowledge reports, in fact I believe that it is not enough to receive a report, you should repeat it to make sure that it has been correctly copied, and you should hear your report correctly repeated. My point is that these reports do not appear in the database, and as far as the public record, the database, is concerned it would seem that reports are not required. From this public record we would not even know if reports were in fact exchanged, they would certainly have no influence on the validity of the contact. Rule 3.8.1.2 for chasers refers to an exchange of reports, there is no equivalent specification for activators, and whilst I rather think this was an accidental omission because the chaser rule implies that activators are also required to give reports, omission of reports columns from the public record suggest that these reports were not considered to be vital when the database was designed. I will not speculate on why this was, but I would like to see it changed when convenient. However, the fact remains that the public record for now does not require a signal report.

I would suggest that this reasoning negates Martyn’s point, a failure to exchange reports does not at present invalidate a chasers contact, although a punctilious operator will and should reject such a contact it would appear that there is no requirement to do so. Indeed, as Martyn points out, all sorts of stuff might go into the database, but I reiterate that as set up, a contact without a verified exchange of reports is not invalid, and the database is the public record of all claimed SOTA contacts.

I hope my point is now sufficiently clear.

73

Brian G8ADD

30

In reply to G8ADD:

… omission of reports columns from the public record suggest that these reports were not considered to be vital when the database was designed. I will not speculate on why this was, but I would like to see it changed when convenient.

Sorry to be somewhat pedantic Brian, but surely the issue here is carrying out an activation in accordance with good practice in the manner that you have aptly described. Should not therefore the rules for activators be amended to reflect those for chasers, so confirming this?

Whether or not the database shows that reports have been exchanged is an irrelevance. Is it not a matter of trust in the same way as other aspects of an activation are a matter of trust? I see no need to alter the record, besides, what relevance would the recording of reports have other than to facilitate the detailed cross-checking of logs? Has SOTA now become a contest?

To my mind the database is entirely fit for purpose in its current format as it records who worked who, when and on what band and mode - the basis of the award scheme.

73, Gerald G4OIG

31

In reply to G4OIG:

Sorry to be somewhat pedantic Brian, but surely the issue here is
carrying out an activation in accordance with good practice in the
manner that you have aptly described. Should not therefore the rules
for activators be amended to reflect those for chasers, so confirming
this?

I think so, and hope that the rest of the MT will consider the amendment worthwhile when the next update takes place.

73

Brian G8ADD

32

In reply to G8ADD:

I must be getting old because if you have defined what the chaser has to send and receive you’ve also defined what the activator has to send and receive.

If people want to exchange inside leg measurement or hat size or how many blue beans make five, then they’re free to do so.

Signal reports in the log? Don’t be silly. Unless you intend to cross-check logs to ensure that info exchanged has been logged correctly then you’re just wasting everybody’s time. In such a case all reports will be come 5/9 so there’s no chance of losing contacts. I don’t know about you but I have a finite number of seconds on this earth and have no intention wasting them with signal reports in a log files!

Andy
MM0FMF
(now with even less seconds than before I started typing this)

33

In reply to MM0FMF:

I must be getting old because if you have defined what the chaser has
to send and receive you’ve also defined what the activator has to send
and receive.

I was just suggesting standardisation of the rules Andy. As an activator I don’t ever recall reading the rules for chasers and have only ever chased using the same procedure as other chasers as witnessed on air.

73, Gerald G4OIG

34

In reply to MM0FMF:

I must be getting old because if you have defined what the chaser has
to send and receive you’ve also defined what the activator has to send
and receive.

You’re missing the point. Nobody disputes that the rules require an exchange of reports, and clearly both activator and chaser must participate in that symmetrically.

The question on the table is: “What if reports are for some reason not exchanged?” As I read the rules, in these circumstances the activator may count the contact as one of the 4 necessary to score (or the only one needed to claim a unique) but the chaser may not claim the chaser points.

This is odd, but is what seems to be said. It is not an illogical asymmetry, because it seems fair to place a lesser burden on the activator who has had to climb the hill and may be operating in adverse conditions, or may have contacted somebody who is not a chaser and is unable or unwilling to give a formal report.

But if it was not intentional, but merely an oversight, the MT may wish to correct the wording.

Neither station is required to log the reports, so the discussion of logging is another complete red herring!

35

In reply to M1MAJ:

My personal view is that the apparent difference in the rules for chasers & activators is a simple oversight when the rules were originally devised.

As regards the exchange of reports, I simply follow a practice that has been widespread throughout many areas of amateur radio for as long as I can remember. Most areas of amateur radio that involve achievement of goals or objectives, however small, usually have some sort of minimum requirement for a contact to be valid. Many of these are unofficial conventions that have developed over time & whose origins may be shrouded in the mists of time.

An example is the confirmation of reports both ways when working DX. If I was fortunate enough to have a 60 minute ragchew with a ZL station & neither of us gave each other a report that would certainly still be a DX contact in my book, but convention amongst DXer’s would suggest an exchange & confirmation of reports is necessary.

When chasing or activating SOTA I simply follow the conventions already in use before I became involved in SOTA. I personally prefer to follow the DX convention of exchanging reports & also confirming the report I have been given with the other station, which seems to be the normal SOTA practice on phone modes. This certainly meets the requirements of the rules regarding exchange of reports for both activators & chasers. On CW I have found that a RR or RRR confirming accurate reception of a given report seems to be the convention, without the need to send the report received back to the other station.

My view then is that by all means bring the rules for chasers & activators into alignment, but please don’t over-complicate things. The conventions that have been used by SOTA activators & chasers for several years work, & are understood by many non-SOTA stations. To do anything that would change the way we operate would be a bad move in my opinion.

My suggestion for any re-wording of the rules specifically regarding the exchange of reports should be worded to mean the following:

“Ideally, signal reports should exchanged between both chasing & activating stations. It is not a requirement for the receiving station to send the report they received back to the other station as part of the exchange, but it is their responsibility to ensure that they have received their report correctly, for any contact they are intending to enter into the SOTA database.”

That wording in my view covers established conventions for both activators & chasers while hopefully clarifying exactly the “report” part of the exchange.

Feel free to shoot big holes in the above if you wish.

With regard to the original question from Andrew M6ADB, I have worked several non-SOTA stations that met the requirements for a valid activation, & given them their summit reference on occasions too, both while activating & chasing. People didn’t suddenly start going up hills with radios when SOTA was originated, they have been doing it for generations & as long as the station is operating within the rules of SOTA, feel free to claim the S2S or chaser contact.

73,

Mark G0VOF

36

In reply to all of you:

Errrrghhh!

And what about if both Peter and Paul are operating their station having climbed on top of a summit specified in the summit database, both use non-fossil power supply, etc. etc. etc. blah-blah-blah, but they do not announce the summit references during their QSO, merely exchange reports (and say thank you for the s2s QSO?! (Just because they both know from one another that what are they doing, where they are, etc. E.g. they announced these information in the previous QSO made at the frequency and they know that the QSO partner is aware of that…) Is this a valid summit-to-summit QSO or not? (IMHO that is!)

People, please stop useless rag chewing! Forget about this hair splitting “ersatz activity”! (The same applies for topics like “invalid operation”, etc.!) You’d better go activating or chasing and enjoy what you are doing! Enjoy HAM radio, enjoy the nature, etc. This is the one and only thing, that counts!

BTW, it is absolutely irrelevant, what do I or you think about issues like in the title row, just because whenever you submit data into the database, you MUST accept that “I agree that the decision of the MT will be final in any case of dispute”! Even if you absolutely disagree their opinion! But if so, than what are we talking about?

73: Joska