N0AX's idea is a neat concept, but the implementation is tough:
According to Ward, "These guys are armed with field strength meters and
mobile rigs,"
Field strength is damn hard to prove. Recall W20NV's run-in with feds in the
mid '70s. Field strength was not conclusive in proving the fed's case that he
was running illegal power. Granted, we're not proving criminal conduct,
merely unsportsman like conduct. Yet, it may be offensive to some to have a
3rd party pass judgement on someone's power levels w/o actually seeing
equipment.
Clear guidelines must be provided as to what is a violation, and these must be
known in advance. What about lids? Are we going to crack-down on frequency
turf wars and attrition battles (working bogus call after bogus call to deny
someone else's use of the frequency). This stuff annoys me more than running
out-of-class power.
Contest OO's must be listeners; there can be no interaction with the contester
during the contest. I sure as hell don't want KB1LID telling me how, or how
not, to operate. Look at pro sports: Basketball and football have been ruined
by the referees.
Who is qualifiedto be an OO? All the more reason for a committee to review
the infraction. The OOs get "just the facts," preferably on tape. A
committee makes the ruling later (before publishing scores) whether the score
is penalized. Of course, the violater must be warned in advance, and I think,
be permitted to offer mitigation. Multiple observations would help to prove
violations.
Last, is the cure worse than the disease? Maybe so, as in football's instant
replay, we could try it, decide whether it works or not, and make the decision
later to keep it, or dump it.
I'm up for trying it, but I may not like it later. Personally, I don't care
if someone else pulls within 500 hz of my freq, but some expect clear channel.
Who's interpretation is right ? Limit enforcement to things that are
enforceable.
"It's just a hobby," Steve, K0SF
|