I gotta tell ya Jim, it scares me that someone actually thought this up.
>I am cross posting because it is both=20
>a score posting as well as a CONTESTING topic of discussion:
>N6IG SOHP 549/8/73 =3D 96,714 points 11.1 hours
>W6AX SOHP 558/9/76 =3D 102,000 points 8.8 hours (op N6IG)
>These were two entries that I operated as a single-op, unassisted, FROM =
>THE SAME STATION. W6AX is a club call for which I am the trustee...
>Net result: I had a lot of fun. I would operate the contest for an =
hour=20
>or two with one call, then QRT and operate an hour or two with the =
other=20
>call. I gave lots of people 2 QSOs instead of one, and NO, N6IG did =
NOT=20
>work W6AX or vice-versa. Also, the club I belong to gets two entries=20
>around 100K for the club competition instead of a single score around=20
>130K which I would have made with one callsign.
Does this strike you as fair play?
>Questions: Is this legal? Clearly, it is not disallowed in the=20
>"complete" rules, so it is legal.
>Is this ethical? Who knows..
C'mon Jim, you know its wrong. You are taking advantage of a simple =
oversight. What you've done here is no different (in practice) from =
working a station with one call then calling him again with another =
call. If, as you say, you did this to keep from getting 'bored", thats =
fine. But IMHO, when you submit both logs, you have jumped over the =
ethical line with both feet.
>.I can't see where anyone got hurt, except=20
>where I didn't work myself. Everyone else got two QSOs instead of just =
>one, it promoted more activity.
True it may have increased the activity in a small way, but if your club =
wins its category based on the difference in your "bonus" score, do you =
think you can take pride in the fact that you won it based on taking =
advantage of an oversight on someone elses part? How about your fellow =
club members? Have you asked them how they feel?
>If N6IG feeds a mult to W6AX, does this make them both multi-op? I say =
>no, as the rules define "all operation being done by a single =
operator". =20
>Clearly, there was a single operator here, just using two calls.
I think you have missed the point of many of the discussions lately. If =
we expect contest organizers to write the rules so there are no =
loopholes, they will have to hire lawyers. The result will be less =
contests. It behooves us all to make every effort to keep within the =
spirit of the rules. This has been expressed several times lately by =
those much more articulate than I.
>Who else will try this next year? Will someone try three calls? Four? =
=20
>What is the breakpoint for most points to be gained for a given amount =
of=20
>time spent when determining a club entry?
I think you've got to spend less time worrying about ways around the =
rules. What you propose here would just give another reason to "collect" =
calls, just like all the gluttons we saw grab what they could from the =
vanity pool.
>The last two questions are probably moot, as I fully expect the=20
>"complete" rules next near to disallow this sort of operation. Too=20
>bad...it was quite a kick!
Well now, here we agree. I certainly hope you're right!
Very 73 de Tom, N2GQS
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/3830faq.html
Submissions: 3830@contesting.com
Administrative requests: 3830-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-3830@contesting.com
Sponsored by: Akorn Access, Inc & KM9P
|