CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] I can see the difference...

To: CQ-Contest Post <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] I can see the difference...
From: Jim Idelson <k1ir@designet.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 08:53:04 -0500
List-post: <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
Topic #1: Is This OK?

It's the end of SS and I still need some sections. I know about nets that 
operate on 75/80m and typically have checkins from those elusive sections. I go 
to those frequencies and there they are. I check in and ask for QSOs with the 
stations in the sections I need. Net participants eagerly reach out to assist. 
Everyone on the net is willing to give a QSO, not just the needed mults.

Is this ok? Is this like having a prearranged sked? Is it more like taking 
advantage of a lesser-known propagation path in a DX contest? Is it different 
if I am a big gun trying to win the contest than if I am a little gun trying 
for the sweep? Is this an old question that's been answered many times before?

Topic #2: Gentlemen's Agreements and Double Standards

Rules should be solid and there should be one set for everyone. Sponsors should 
work hard to define good rules and enforce them as best they can. Standards 
developed outside the sponsors' rules are of little value - they are 
unenforceable, poorly publicized, not universally agreed, the list goes on. And 
creating different expectations for different kinds of participants is faulty 
logic - what level of participation or competitiveness separates a real 
competitor from a dabbler; are the habits developed by a dabbler under a 
less-stringent set of expections going to disappear when that person gets more 
serious about contesting?

So, I don't think the approach of getting a bunch of contesters to sign up to a 
GA is an appropriate approach. Instead, I prefer something like a Contester's 
Guide to Ethical Competition - only useful when adopted and specifically 
referenced in contest sponsors' rules.

Check out this verbage extracted from the Policies and Procedures Manual of the 
Tennessee Section of the PGA:

"Code of Conduct
- The behavior of Professionals in TPGA Tournaments shall be held to the 
highest standard. Any conduct which shows disrespect to the Tournament 
Committee/Director, the PGA Code of Ethics, or traditional etiquette of golf 
shall constitute grounds for disqualification from an event and/or disciplinary 
action by the TPGA Board of Directors."

Topic #3: Proposal: International Association of Radio Contesters [IARC]

An organization of, by and for ham radio contesters. Not a sponsor of any 
contest. Established to create standards and recommendations to make contesting 
a better sport. Provides a connection between contesters in all parts of the 
world. Drives recruitment of new contesters and betterment of existing ops. 
Includes an "affiliated club" designation, wherein a club contributes resources 
to the operation of IARC and receives the benefits of contributions from other 
affiliated clubs. IARC would also offer a "sanctioning" function, whereby 
contest sponsors would apply for IARC approval for their events. For major 
competition, like WRTC, sanctioning by IARC might be a good way to ensure that 
events used for evaluating applicants meet some minimum standards 
[participation, quality of log checking, rules, etc.] IARC could certainly 
adopt a Contester's Code of Conduct and require that it be adhered to as part 
of contest sanctioning.

73,

Jim Idelson K1IR
email    k1ir at designet.com
web    http://www.k1ir.com
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

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