[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] SSB in CW band

To: Hank Kohl K8DD <k8dd@arrl.net>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] SSB in CW band
From: DL8MBS <prickler.schneider@t-online.de>
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 15:20:47 +0100
List-post: <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
Hank Kohl K8DD wrote:

>Who is going to enforce it?
>How is it going to be enforced?
>Disqualify a large operation because they slipped below the suggest 
>frequency limit
Every organizer is free to make the "gentlemen´s agreement" part of the 
rules as some already do. Every organizer is also free to enforce this 
by penalties of his choice published in the rules, i.e. deleting the 
relevant qsos and maybe an additional penalty as exercised with "NILs" 
of all sorts. No need to have DQ as only penalty, real sports have a 
wide range of different penalties. No need for a referee there to send a 
player off for the first minor foul. But the existence of a set of 
penalties regularly used clearly diminishes the number of fouls.
But of course I don´t expect referee or monitoring stations to be 
activated by organizers (even if there was one mention of it in RDXC 
rules some years ago and also this year silently for WAG to keep some 
JOTA-frequencies clear).
But referees as in sports clearly would diminish the "fun" and therefore 
are not likely to come.
Would it be a biiiig molestation for most to add and enfore at least 
something like a 7020-barrier to the rules (and maybe similar boundaries 
for CW and RTTY-contests, too, if regarded as necessary)?  The argument 
against it that not every rulebreaker could be penalized is IMHO not 
valid, as it would be a reason to delete most rules and laws. IMHO such 
a step would help to improve the image of us contesters in the bigger 
non-contesting part of the ham-community.
73, Chris


CQ-Contest mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>