On Nov 13, 2006, at 12:55 AM, Jeff Maass wrote:
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
>> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of N6HC@aol.com
>> Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 9:36 PM
>> To: w5ov@w5ov.com; cq-contest@contesting.com
>> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Easy way to correct answer
>>
>> In a message dated 11/12/06 10:12:28 A.M. Pacific Standard
>> Time, w5ov@w5ov.com writes:
>>
>> So, while I see us on the same side in the battle, I will
>> continue to be vocal and speak out against the tyranny.
>>
>> I wish you god speed. Just be wise enough to pick and choose
>> your battles
>> carefully. Not all injustice requires calling out the
>> militia. I'll be right
>> beside you when the battle is crucial.
>> Arnie N6HC
>
> That's good, because now that we know that we
> cannot take the League's published contest rules
> (guidelines? suggestions?) as Gospel without
> Contest Desk interpretation, there are many
> battles to come...
>
> Hmmm, SS rules don't say you have to send **your**
> section as a part of the exchange, just "ARRL/RAC
> Section". Maybe I can send "ND" (it's an ARRL
> Section!) This is convenient, since I'll be out of
> the country for Phone SS. I'll have to ask The Desk.
>
> I'm sure that ARRL will now re-publish SS rule 4.4
> to make clear that the check has nothing to do
> with the "year first licensed", as that is now their
> official stated position. Published rules should be
> accurate and complete.
Sigh... There IS NO amount of clarification of rules that will be
specific enough to preclude interpretation. I've been writing rules
and guidelines for over 10 years now, and have not found one rule
that cannot be twisted, purposely misinterpreted, or "worked around".
Perhaps if we were to write encyclopedia length rules books, that
might not be the case.
But I doubt it. My experience has been that the more words, the more
possible interpretations.
So what do we do, those of us who write the rules?
First thing is we have to decide what the spirit of the rules are.
Let us take the much beaten Year of license grant exchange. What is
that about? First off, it is simply a source of data for the
exchange. It provides a check between two different stations - If you
gave a 35 to another station, his log should reflect that. Your log
should reflect his exchange. That's pretty simple. There is no
particular advantage here, regardless of what dit-counters might have
us believe.
So nothing has been gained or lost. There has been an exchange
between two stations, and as long as it matches then all is well.
I would like to note that slippery sloping the argument to assume
that if you "fake" your licensing date, and it is okay, so it must
also be okay to fake your section, is absolutely incorrect. In the
spirit of contesting and Amateur radio, the Operators section is a
vital part of the contest. It is every bit as important as the
callsign. Willfully violating that rule is an egregious action that
would earn a lifetime ban in my contest, if proven. That one doesn't
have to be written into any contest rules to be true.
And there we have the crux of the issue. Do we have to write "all
cases of everything" into contests? DO I need to say that the OP must
be in the section that they say that they are in? Do I need to state
that I'm expecting legally licensed amateurs to participate? But that
it is okay for a Technician or even an unlicensed person to compete
as long as there is a control OP present. But if you are an amateur
who has had their license revoked, you cannot participate even if
there is a properly licensed control Op present? Do I need to specify
a tolerance of error for the start time of a contest? Some people
don't have their computers set on exactly the right time, and I have
heard people operating our party a few minutes early, and a few
minutes late.
In our party, the exchange is a serial number as well as a county or
section. Serial numbers start at one and work their way up. Sounds
pretty simple, eh? Multi-op stations tend to have that second station
start at 1001, if there are 3 stations, the third one starts at 2001.
But wait a minute! This is no longer a serial number. Do we need to
define that the second station starts at 2001? or do we mandate that
all multi op stations have either software that can be netted
together, or otherwise come up with a method to ensure that all QSO's
are serial, and occur serially and chronologically.
Speaking of chronologically, what is the margin of error between
QSO's? If one OP has a 1 minute discrepancy compared to the one on
the other end, is that a busted QSO? What should the margin of error be?
In the end, we have to decide just what the heck we are doing. Are
we having a contest, or are we writing rules? We are here to enjoy
ourselves, to have some fun, As Jukka so concisely pointed out, the
idea is to have fun. Are you having fun?
>> Published rules should be
>> accurate and complete.
We try. It's a losing game though.
And we're always looking for help.
Hopefully I killed this thread.
-73 de Mike KB3EIA -
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|