CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] Same-Band "Dueling CQs" Now Prohibited in All ARRL Cont

To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Same-Band "Dueling CQs" Now Prohibited in All ARRL Cont
From: Jim Neiger <n6tj@sbcglobal.net>
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 21:00:39 -0700
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
i agree. Like a few more signals on any band are suddenly going to overwhelm everyone? Operators can, and will, adjust.

I remember the 2002 ARRL 10 Meters contest from ZD8. The band was loaded, every kc up to 29.2. To paraphrase Neil Diamond's song: Beautiful Noise...................

As far as I'm concerned, wall to wall signals from one end of our spectra to the other is music. Especially the next five years of solar doldrums, we can only dream..............

Vy 73

Jim Neiger  N6TJ


On 4/7/2017 10:16 AM, Stein-Roar Brobakken wrote:
Hi guys

Why not add the category SOMT single op multi transmitter? 👍

So those having skills to run multiple vfo at once can do practice their 
skills??

People are just different and some manage to make it!!

Best Regards,
Stein-Roar Brobakken
LB3RE K3RAG
www.lb3re.com
post@lb3re.com
GSM +4748224421// +4791999421


Den 7. apr. 2017 kl. 17.20 skrev Ron Notarius W3WN <wn3vaw@verizon.net>:

IMHO, let's not make too much out of this decision.

As explained in the newsbite that made the announcement, the practice of
"dueling CQ's" was never intended to be permitted.  Only recently has
technology and (to be fair) operator skill advanced to the point where it
was possible.

And now someone did it.  Correctly pointing out that within the strict
letter of the contest rules in place, the practice was not actually
prohibited.

I know many believe "if it is not strictly forbidden, it is implicitly
allowed".  On something like this, it is unfortunate that accepted practice
had to be explicitly mentioned.  Regardless, an unintended consequence of
not spelling out this specific instance was that a loophole was created and
exploited.

If you want to give a tip of the hat to the PJ4G folks for finding and
exploiting said loophole, well, they or someone on the team did the work and
uncovered it.

The important thing is... They did not break the rules, in fact they
strictly adhered to the rules, as they were written at the time.

Now that it's been exposed, the loophole has been closed and the unintended
consequence should not happen again.  And that is how it should be.

And that should be the end of that.

73, ron w3wn


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

_______________________________________________
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

_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>