4U1WB should not have to sign "/" when they operate from their fixed, home
location. They should be either considered a separate "country" or lumped
in with 4U1UN with both counting as "UN" Similarly, 4U1VIC could be lumped
in with 4U1ITU. These are artificial entities anyway and I think it would
enhance the fun of the contests. Who has not experienced the thrill of
working the "4U1" prefix followed by the let down of it not being a
multiplier?
Chuck W5PR
On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 7:38 PM, W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu@w0mu.com> wrote:
> I could be wrong but I thought 4U1WB could only operate at the world bank
> location and 4U1UN from the UN Building in NY. I do not know if 4u1ITU is
> locked in to a specific location in EU.
>
> Thank you for reconsidering and reinstating the log and fixing the broken
> rules!
>
> W0MU
>
>
>
> On 10/27/2017 1:02 PM, Terry Zivney wrote:
>
>> Why was 4U1WB Disqualified in the CQ WPX Contest?
>>
>> As Masa, AJ3M, noted in his posting about the
>> disqualification of 4U1WB in the 2017 CQ WPX SSB
>> contest, I informed him that:
>>
>> "4U1WB violated rule V.C.2:
>>
>> 2. Special event, commemorative, and other unique prefix stations are
>> encouraged to participate. Prefixes must be assigned by the licensing
>> authority of the country of operation.
>>
>> 4U1 is not assigned by the FCC, the licensing authority of the USA, which
>> is
>> what the log of 4U1WB showed as the country of operation."
>>
>> *********
>>
>> The WPX contest rule cited clearly states that the callsign must be
>> assigned
>> by the licensing authority. The FCC did not assign the callsign, and
>> has no authority to issue 4U1WB callsigns. Thus, the station did not
>> operate in compliance with the existing contest rules.
>>
>> Since 4U1 prefixes can be in multiple countries, rule V.C.1 would also
>> apply.
>> The DXCC list includes 4U1UN and 4U1ITU as separate entities. So, the 4U1
>> prefix does not denote the country of operation. This rule states:
>>
>> "A station operating from a DXCC entity different from that indicated
>> by its call sign is required to sign portable." Because the 4U1WB callsign
>> does not reflect the DXCC entity of USA, it is required to sign portable.
>>
>> I did not write these rules, but was charged with interpreting and
>> enforcing them.
>>
>> *********
>>
>> Why was 4U1WB disqualified in 2017 but not in prior years?
>>
>> I cannot answer why 4U1WB was not disqualified previously. However, I
>> can state that my practice, as I believe is true of most contest
>> directors,
>> is to focus most of my attention on the larger scores. 4U1WB's score
>> was less than 1 percent of the highest score in his category, so it
>> was not eyeballed earlier.
>>
>> I was proofreading the line scores and top scores boxes for the CQ WPX SSB
>> contest shortly before CQ's submission deadline. These scores change
>> every
>> day as new logs are received. I try to let this process continue as long
>> as
>> possible to ensure the most accurate log checking. While doing the
>> proofreading,
>> I noticed 4U1WB/3 listed in a top scores box. This seemed odd, so I looked
>> further. Was this 4U3 or 4U1/W3? What did he send? Reference to his log
>> showed he sent 4U1WB and was located in MDC so it was obviously in the
>> USA.
>> This resulted in my checking the rules about portable callsigns and the
>> rest is history.
>>
>> *********
>>
>> I will change the WPX rule V.C.2 for 2018 to reflect a new and improved
>> wording, "Prefixes must be issued or permitted by the licensing
>> authority of the country of operation."
>>
>> This revised rule will fit the case of 4U1WB, who has a letter from the
>> US Department of State saying that the licensing authority (FCC) has no
>> problem with this operation.
>>
>> I don't believe it was wrong for me to enforce the published rules. The
>> fact that all published rules have not been (and maybe even are not)
>> always
>> enforced does not mean that they can safely be ignored.
>>
>> As an example, the CQWW contest has always had a rule that the exchange
>> includes the zone, yet for many years the directors of the CQWW
>> did not penalize operators for incorrectly reporting the exchange.
>> Indeed, one of the former directors published an article in CQ Contest
>> magazine saying that the exchange would not be checked! Yet, in recent
>> years
>> the exchange has been checked and operators penalized for incorrectly
>> recording the exchange. No advance notice was given of this change in
>> practice. It was always in the rules and now the rules are enforced.
>>
>> **********
>>
>> Resolution of problem
>>
>> 1) Rule V.C.2 will be clarified for the 2018 WPX contest as noted above
>> 2) In the spirit of good sportsmanship, the 4U1WB 2017 logs will be
>> removed
>> from disqualified status and his corrected scores entered in our online
>> databases.
>> 3) An errata will be posted on the CQWPX.com website
>>
>> I am so sorry that this experience caused Masa grief. I respect
>> both Masa and his contest club. I meant no disrespect to either Masa
>> or his contest club over this situation.
>>
>> 73
>>
>> Terry N4TZ, CQ WPX Contest Director
>>
>> This message was posted at 1701 UTC, October 27, 2017
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
|