CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

[CQ-Contest] Correlation to the "Dueling CQs" situation...

To: 'cq-contest' <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Correlation to the "Dueling CQs" situation...
From: Lloyd Cabral <KH6LC@hotmail.com>
Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2017 16:33:23 +0000
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
"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


*************************************************


I wholeheartedly agree with Ron's statement above.     As a correlation to the 
recent "Dual CQing" issue, in the '90s I took hiatus from

playing radio and went sports car racing at tracks up and down the west coast.  
    In that sport, it didn't take long to realize that if you

weren't exploring the "gray areas" of the rules you were running at the back of 
the pack.      Much like the "Dueling CQ" situation, when

things got a little too "progressive" or rules bent a little too far, the rules 
were clarified, the cars changed back to a correct state and off

you'd go.      Unlike motor sports, there's no up-front Tech Inspection in 
radio contesting.     Issues such as this will generally only appear

after the fact.      In this case, the rules were modified to delete the "gray 
area" and life goes on.         No harm, no foul.



                     73 & Aloha,

                   Lloyd   KH6LC




_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • [CQ-Contest] Correlation to the "Dueling CQs" situation..., Lloyd Cabral <=