Although I don't think its necessary that refs be OOs, the advantage of using
OOs is that they have been trained in general regulatory matters. Contest rules
violations should include regulatory infractions as well. I think the ideal
ref would be an OO who is also a contester. Like me. Otherwise, it would not
be hard to train an OO in contest rules. Bear in mind also, that the refs would
also be on the look-out for lids like the guy who chased K6LA around a couple
of weeks ago.
I can see a group of referrees, OOs and non-OOs, being formed who reach mutual
agreement on rules interpretation, violation notification procedures,
observational
techniques and etc. This group would make their observations known after every
contest in an appropriate forum and contest organizer's could either sanction
the activity or not. Matters not. Its entirely possible that some people may
already be working on this. Hint.
Again, I think rules interpretation dialogue rings hollow in the absence of
meaningful enforcement and I'm not convinced that log analysis is alone
sufficient.
I should add that I think this is pretty much ado about nothing. There's
clearly
a handful of nitwits out there who run amock every contest, while everybody
else either behaves themselves or commits a negligent transgression every once
in a while. Having negligently transgressed myself, I can attest to the fact
that it happens and its nothing to be ashamed of. This is, after all, only a
hobby.
73 Neal N7RX
>
>I am not sure OOs would be good contest referees. I remember when I was an
>OO I was never required to be familiar with anything specifically contest
>related. Has this changed?
>
>Mark, N5OT
>
>
>--
>CQ-Contest on WWW: http://lists.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
>Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST@contesting.com
>
>
>
http://www.nwlink.com
--
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://lists.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST@contesting.com
|