Why all the cluster spots on SOTA?

Old Reflector
101

In reply to G4OIG:

“I for one would not have welcomed named summits on a TOP50 map as a parameter for establishing UK summits. There would have been lots of summits to activate, but the challenge would have been considerably reduced. Having said that, I do believe that in England we are short of summits relative to the amateur population and the spread of the summits is also very poor. I will prepare my thoughts on the matter and email our AM in due course putting a case for the P100 parameter to be applied to England. Hopefully others will do likewise, but of course everyone is entitled to their opinion on this.”

To be honest, Gerald, I did not realise that they were doing it in that way or I would have been a lot more vocal. I don’t even see how it works, I mean quite a lot of our hills have more than one name, for instance Earls Hill/Pontesford hill in Shropshire (failing to qualify by one metre!), would this count twice?!

I hope you carry out your intention, a reasoned case can do a lot of good.

73

Brian G8ADD

102

In reply to G8ADD:

In reply to GW0DSP:

I still believe that Klaus and the others expressed intention to leave
SOTA will not come about when they have had time to digest the changes
and see that the result of those changes will not be as catastrophic
as they fear.

I’m not so sure Brian, but I hope they will do their homework and then consider staying with us in SOTA, they are a great asset to sota.

You are indeed entitled to your opinion, and you are indeed
entitled

to voice it without fear of punishment. Nobody that I know of has
been
punished for expressing a contrary opinion. Nobody. And it is
inconceivable that anybody will.

You might want to put that suggestion to Mick 2E0HJD!!"

Mick ran into trouble NOT because of his opinions but because of the
intemporate way he expressed them. He had the opportunity to apologise
and return but refused it. Personally I regretted deeply at the time
and still do that he allowed his pride to get in the way.

I am going to really put my neck on the block with this one.
The comment which brought about Mick’s ban was “well that’s a good start”.
I defy you or anyone else to find anything offensive or intemporate in that remark and that remark WAS the one which brought about Mick’s demise.
MT quoted that he was banned because of remarks he made in the past, if that was the case they should have banned him in the past shouldn’t they!!

You say Mick had the chance to apologise. For what? he did nothing wrong.

Brian, Mick’s ban was the result of a MT witch hunt to remove what they deemed to be a trouble maker. You may or may not be aware that others received threatening emails from MT at the same time that Mick “went”, basically saying shut it or else!! That’s their style but not all ops see it because it is done behind the scenes, through private email and not on the reflector.

Over the past couple of days there have been posts on this reflector that have even made my hair curl, but the authors of those posts go unscathed and received no ban, why not? Simple answer, MT wanted Mick’s scalp, they wanted him off the reflector because he spoke the truth and they didn’t like it.

Mick will never apologise, you know that. If anything, MT should apologise to Mick and offer him the olive branch so we can have one of SOTA’s characters back where he belongs!!

That’s about it, I have my tin hat on:-)

73 Mike GW0DSP

103

I see that as quite a distortion of what really happened Mike. The facts:

There was not a “witchhunt”.

No emails were “threatening”

No emails ever used language like “shut it or else!”

That is most certainly NOT our style, and it is rather unfair of you (in my opinion) to use such emotive and misleading language.

Mick was not banned for the remark you quote. A dialogue between Jon GM4ZFZ (owner of ths resource) and Mick was initiated, following which Mick did post further comments on the reflector that were well outside of the posting guidelines Jon had just explained to him. That was the cause of the removal of his posting rights. (His database account and participation in the SOTA programme remained - Mick ended those by his own choice).

Let’s leave that at that; Mick is not participating in SOTA of his own free choice.

Tom

104

If that is the case, then are they individual hills/summits that have a genuine place in the “Summits on the Air” programme anyway?

Tom

105

In reply to M1EYP:

No emails were “threatening”

They most certainly were threatening Tom, those who received them were threatened with a ban if they didn’t do as they were told.
I keep every email and I know that Barry 2E0PXW kept his and could post it here to let others decide if it is threatening or not, once again it is down to interpretation and I know how people would perceive it.

No emails ever used language like “shut it or else!”

That was a metaphore, but basically MT said you can only say what we will allow you to say or we will remove your right to use the reflector.

That is most certainly NOT our style, and it is rather unfair of you
(in my opinion) to use such emotive and misleading language.

That is your style, I just resigned as sota news editor and will be now publishing the news elswhere, purely because of the unacceptable style of Jon’s latest email which was in the style of someone scolding a naughty child. I have stored that email too.

Mick was not banned for the remark you quote. A dialogue between Jon
GM4ZFZ (owner of ths resource) and Mick was initiated, following which
Mick did post further comments on the reflector that were well outside
of the posting guidelines Jon had just explained to him. That was the
cause of the removal of his posting rights.

Tom, mick’s posting rights were removed immediately after posting the comment I quoted, of that I am 100% certain and I am sure that others will confirm this.

(His database account and

participation in the SOTA programme remained - Mick ended those by his
own choice).

That is correct

Let’s leave that at that; Mick is not participating in SOTA of his own
free choice.

Tom

I will agree that Mick is not participating in sota because he removed his own account, but not quite of his own free choice, his hand was forced through his damaged pride when you removed his right to post on the reflector.

Mike

PS I am surprised to hear that Jon GM4ZFZ is the owner of this resource, I was under the impression that John G4WGV was the owner.

106

In reply to GW0DSP:
Hey Mike, if you keep poking the dog it will bite you !!! LoL

I cannot believe its got back to Mick again, he will be loving his infamity !

Sorry Mike, you will never win, its all bo*****ks ! As far as the MT are concerned its their way or the highway, wether its right or wrong thats the way it is and you have to like it and take part or lump it and dont take part.
Shame really because its a great progam that lots of people enjoy, me included, but its run by blinkered puppets who have little or no regard for the feelings/feedback of the very people that keep it going …the participants. I have had vitrious emails from the MT and I too kept them, I also flushed out 2 worms in the garden too and received emails that were not supposed to be emailed to me from said worms. highlighting some very choice comments about participants from the MT, they would make your hair fall out !! So I for one know it happens and concur with you on that point and all the others you make aswell.

It needs sorting or it will be the end of SOTA.

107

In reply to M0LMP:

MT are making some very choice comments about participants. Hummm… I bet there are more participants making choise words about the MT… :wink:

108

In reply to DL4MFM:

With p150 I will loose 99% of the summits and with p100 about 80% of
the summits in a radius of 50km around my qth. There are now 92 1
point summits.

Sorry to hear that Mario. I do not have any summits within 50km of my QTH. There are two 1 point summits at about 80km and the rest are much further away. If p100 applied I would have one 1 point summit at about 40km, but it is on private land and the owner does not like people going there.

73, Gerald

109

In reply to DL4MFM:

Within 50 km by road of my home city (Birmingham) there is just one Marilyn. Lots of hills of similar height that do not possess P150, but thats geography for you!

Mario, I don’t know if you realise this, but a “Marilyn” is a piece of British humour, not a mountain. The summits over 3,000 feet in Scotland are called Munroes, a P150 hill is not necessarily a Munroe so it is a Marilyn, after the Hollywood actress who possessed significant prominences!

A Marilyn isn’t a mountain, it merely defines how prominent an eminence is amongst other eminences. It tells you that a hill or mountain is out of the ordinary, it is special. I repeat that. It is SPECIAL. I really doubt that you have a smaller proportion of marilyn eminences compared to sub-marilyn eminences in your country than I have in mine, and I can’t help feeling that if every little eminence is allowed to count for SOTA, a lot of the flavour of the program will be lost.

No, I agree you can’t compare a summit on Skye or Mull with the Teutoberg Forest, any more than you can compare it with my local Clent Hills, or with the granite moors of Cornwall. They all have their distinct “look”. What you can do is what we do in SOTA, which is select the summits that stand out from their surrounding summits and make them our special targets. You describe this element of “specialness” as a “joke”, but it is the very soul and centre of SOTA. The MT has made it clear that they are prepared to compromise by reducing the degree of “specialness”, and I can tell you that this compromise has not met with universal approval!

73

Brian G8ADD

110

In reply to DL4MFM:

Thank you Mario for the objective analysis of the situation in your area - just the sort of information I have been craving.

Should adoption of the P100 criterion not provide a viable Association, a possible solution is already provided for within the General Rules:

3.11.1 Alternative scoring strategy option

Where it can be shown that a scoring system based on altitude is demonstrably impractical then the Association Manager shall propose an alternative scoring system for approval by the Programme Management Team. Such a system must take into account the full range of Summits in the Association. It shall be the Association Manager’s responsibility to establish the need for such an alternative scoring system and to provide evidence to the satisfaction of the Programme Management Team.

Taken together with the requirement for inclusivity espoused in Rule 3.5.3 this should permit an acceptable compromise to be reached - perhaps by a range limitation, or some other suitable criterion. Over to your AM’s…

73 de Paul G4MD