[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] Aniother rules/remote RX issue

To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Aniother rules/remote RX issue
From: brian coyne <g4odv@yahoo.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2012 12:40:55 +0100 (BST)
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
This debate whilst a perennial one has been extremely well debated. Whilst the 
consensus of opinion is a 'No' vote those who say 'Yes' put their points very 
well. The problem stems from how rules are worded and we get bogged down in the 
minutia of interpretation or the view that if an action is not particularly 
excluded then it should be allowed.
It has been commented that most guys who read these pages are old 'died in the 
wool' troglodytes who wish to maintain tradition and resist change, which may 
be partly true but not in the matter of resisting change. Innovation and 
technical advances have been recognised, a class has been created but there are 
still guys who wish to stay with SO and stretch the envelope - why? 
We wish to maintain tradition because that is what we enjoy doing and wish to 
continue doing it. When 'Assisted Class' was first introduced there was a 
stigma label attached to it and it was used only by guys who put in a part time 
effort or were chasing dxcc counters or whatever. Not so now, the numbers are 
growing, possibly aided by reports of yellow and red cards awarded, and will 
continue to grow.
It is significant that when these questions are posted here that they come not 
from newbies but experienced contesters who know very well what the phrase 
'Single Operator' means. A gentle reminder here of contest rules where we all 
declare that we operated the station 'within the spirit of the contest'. 
Anything outside our understanding of those original drafted rules is not 
subscribing to the ham spirit of fair play, including any play on wording.
It is understandable, but regrettable IMO, that many CC's outside the USA have 
taken the easy option by allowing assistance in all classes thus avoiding 
inevitable accusations, complaints that will follow an event but we do not wish 
to see our major contests go this way. Innovation and new technology is great - 
go use it and forget this mindset that SO is for the elite.
Bob W5OV says it all here about the time served understanding of the term 
'Single Operator'. ........
Where you draw the line is where it involves:

1) other operators
2) remote systems beyond the physical limits of the station
3) local hardware that replaces the operator in locating, decoding and
identifying signals
I would add something here about the original post.
An op who calls cq in this manner may or may not hear anything from the RBN but 
others will, so we have the additional objection to having our time wasted in 
calling him, particulary if he is not satified with one string but eminates 
several and repeats at intervals during the event when more people become 
involved. Imagine then the scenario where somebody who does not work him spots 
him (and we all see spots after the event from guys who did not call/work us) 
that adds up to a lot of wasted time imposed on others.Whilst this is going on 
he is busy working his first radio. I do not appreciate having my time wasted 
in this manner, and that goes for SO2R ops too who queue their cq's whilst they 
have a busy run on their first radio. It is inconsiderate and selfish to 
command two parts of the spectrum on busy bands. Neither of these actions are 
within the ham spirit.
73 Brian 5B4AIZ/C4Z
CQ-Contest mailing list
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>