1. I don't remember anybody calling it "assistance". It is, however,
multi-op. There is a difference.
2. It's not up to the contest sponsor to decide to reclassify the log,
but I suspect that they would do so if the operator requested it.
On 6/23/2012 9:01 AM, Dick Green WC1M wrote:
> I think it's somewhat silly and a bit of a stretch to call the presence of
> the control operator "assistance". That person isn't doing anything, other
> than lending the contest operator use of his/her license. That person is
> also lending the contest operator use of his/her station, QTH, food,
> bathroom, etc. Why is that different? In no case is the control operator
> actually doing anything that affects the competition. He/she is not
> operating, providing spots, fixing broken equipment, etc. (I'm sure the
> prohibition against that last item has been violated countless times.)
> Oh, you say operating in the Extra Class sub-band is a competitive
> advantage? Yeah, so is a 4-stack on 20m. But the latter can be "loaned" to
> the contest operator, while the former cannot.
> That said, the "angels dancing on the head of pin" interpretation being used
> is that the control operator must be physically present by FCC rule. That's
> true. So, since another body has to be in the room, it's automatically
> multi-op. While I disagree with that strict interpretation, and think the
> impact on the competition is the better way to look at this, I believe HQ is
> within its rights to interpret the rule as it has.
> However, I do not think the log should be DQed. It should be reclassified as
> multi-op. The op didn't try to cheat. He made an innocent mistake.
> The real issue here is the vague wording of the rules. If the action is
> against the rules, and will result in DQ or reclassification, then the rules
> should explicitly say so.
> 73, Dick WC1M
CQ-Contest mailing list