Brian makes an excellent point that checking propagation via the RBN can result
in "false spots" that waste time for Unlimited and Multi-op stations. I
wouldn't outlaw the practice for that reason, but would certainly put a section
in the ARRL Contest FAQ discouraging it.
73, Dick WC1M
> -----Original Message-----
> From: brian coyne [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2012 7:41 AM
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Aniother rules/remote RX issue
> 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