Hi all,
So I don't say this to contradict anything Ron's saying, because he's right,
there are contests which have rules prohibiting this practice.
My question is why?
Whose interests are protected by this prohibition?
It seems to me that if this is allowed, more people can be active at
different times of the contest. Since their efforts would clearly be
part-time, they pose no threat to the full-time ops. Two ops at one station
would provide each other with negligible score value, if any. Since each
operation would be unto itself, it's not like it's a back-door into the
multiop category.
This would only encourage more part-time efforts which would only mean MORE
stations for the full-time ops to work, particularly in any contest
afflicted by Sunday doldrums. Imagine if a hundred stations in SS suddenly
became fresh meat again by virtue of a new operation.
In thinking this through, the only rationale I could come up with for such a
prohibition is a fear that a station would set up a revolving door with a
hundred or so ops feeding QSOs to one or a handful of stations, club members
perhaps. But since contest rules only apply to those who submit to them by
entering a competitive log, and this station could easily do this and not
submit a log and therefore not be bound by this rule, I'm not sure the rule
holds much water. Particularly if each op worked enough club members to
avoid being flagged as a Unique.
I could suggest a few rules to make this happen:
1. Each operation must have a different operator and a different callsign.
2. Operations at one station may not work each other.
3. Each operation must make a minimum of 100 QSOs and must count at least 20
multipliers.
4. All equipment and antennas must be located on the station owner's
property.
5. Use of spotting is permitted only if all operations enter as assisted.
It seems to me to be a reasonable proposal at a time when more of us are
saying we don't have the time to do a full 48 but would love to play.
73, kelly
ve4xt
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Notarius W3WN" <wn3vaw@verizon.net>
To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 11:00 PM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Two callsign, two op, single station
> It could be very interesting. Same station, different ops/calls, diffeent
> times... a comparison between the two logs would really come down to
> propagation and operator skill since the equipment available would be
> otherwise equal.
>
> However, if I'm not mistaken, many if not most major contests disallow
> this
> in principle, with the exception of a single station that is assigned more
> than one call (such as a family station -- husband/wife, parent/child,
> etc.). So if you were to do this in a major contest, you couldn't send in
> an entry unless you were given a waiver for the purposes of the
> experiment.
>
> Hope you enjoyed CQ WW CW. What little operating time I had, I did!
> Picked
> up a few new ones and filled in a few bands for some entities... really
> need
> to get a 160 antenna up somehow, though...
>
> 73, ron w3wn
> CQ WW 06 single operator, packet monitoring, packet contributing,
> eavesdropping on who the big guns worked when applicable, and not giving
> a... hoot about category because I didn't work enough to bother sending in
> a
> log anyway... ok, maybe a check log...
>
> -----Original Message-----
> Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 23:58:34 EST
> From: PaulKB8N@aol.com
> Subject: [CQ-Contest] Two callsign, two op, single station
> To: CQ-Contest@contesting.com
>
> It occurred to me during CQWW CW this weekend that the contest could be
> very
> exciting if two operators shared one station with two callsigns. I'm
> talking about taking one or two hour shifts during the prime hours, and
> perhaps a
> longer shift during the wee hours of the morning and the high-absorption
> mid-day hours, with alternating callsigns and comparing scores at the end
> of the
> contest.
>
> Seems like it might break up the 48 hours a bit and maybe even allow some
> rest for our aging contest population. Although it might be a crap shoot
> as
> far as good vs. bad hours and conditions, it might also address that
> "level
> playing field" issue.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Paul, K5AF
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|