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
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
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.
CQ-Contest mailing list