A good question. I have done only a few Single Band entries but it seems
natural that doing 80 or 160m Single Band you would roam around on high
bands during day to arrange low band sceds. I have never thought that it
would be against the rules or unsportsmanlike. Never noticed anything in the
rules about it as well.
But now rereading the CQWW rules I found: All entrants must operate within
the limits of their chosen category when performing any activity that could
impact their submitted score.
Is that sentence by any means impling I should not go to other bands while
SOSB?? Beacause actually as Jim correctly pointed out even presence on the
other bands helps my SB effort not talking about arranging sceds.
73
tonno
es5tv
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Tope" <W4EF@dellroy.com>
To: <n6tj@sbcglobal.net>; <CQ-Contest@contesting.com>
Sent: 7. detsember 2004. a. 4:57
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] one call sign
On a slightly related note, I noticed that one USA single band entry
in the CQ WW SSB contest had an unusually high multiplier count.
Still less than the M/M's but much higher than other single band
entries with a similar QSO count. This got me to thinking, how did
this guy do it without using packet (I am assuming he didn't cheat)?
Then it occured to me that one might be able to move multipliers
from the other bands. This would be especially easy if one had an
SO2R capable station. Would scouring the other bands with a
second rig and moving people as part of a single band effort be
within the letter of the rules? If so, would this be considered within
the spirit of the rules? Seems to me like it wouldn't be within the
spirit of doing a single band effort. Has anyone give this any
thought?
73 de Mike, W4EF.............................
----- Original Message -----
From: "James Neiger" <n6tj@sbcglobal.net>
To: <CQ-Contest@contesting.com>
Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 5:38 PM
Subject: [CQ-Contest] one call sign
In response to a K3EST note here on 1 December re: exception to the long
standing rules allowing A61AJ operators to all sign this call while
operating on several single-bands, I submit the following:
Mr. Cox makes the statement that "It serves no purpose to prevent an
entry
if the integrity of the contest is upheld". More about that later.
Mr. Cox says that "extraordinary circumstances" are in play here, and the
purpose of the contest is to encourage activity.
Fine. But isn't that why we have at least THREE multi-operator classes
in
which these gentlemen could participate, ergo their activity would most
certainly be encouraged?
I respectfully submit that by allowing A61AJ to be signed on multiple
bands,
while claiming single-operator, single-band, MOST DEFINITELY gives these
A61AJ operators and advantage over their single band competitors.
For example, I'm at TO4A (which I was), and I work A61AJ on 40 meters.
Fine.
I later go to 80, and I hear a station (in the QRM) and I hear something
that sounds something like A61???. My natural reaction, of course, will
be,
"hey I previously worked A61AJ on 40, they're almost always
multi-something,
I'm going to send A61AJ, and I believe that to be it. If they don't come
back and say no, it's really A61EE, I'm going to believe it A61AJ,
confirm
that I have the call right, and proceed with high confidence that I have
a
valid QSO."
In other words, it has given me an a priori sense that it's probably the
same station, and this sense I submit would be to my, and their,
advantage.
Simply stated, allowing multiple single banders to use the same call is
against the rules, and I believe will give them an unfair advantage over
other single band stations in the same category.
Perhaps this is why our Founding Fathers had the foresight to dictate the
one call, one category posture in the first place?
Without any rationale stated, Mr. Cox unilaterally determined that the
"integrity of the contest was upheld". To which I say: "it would not
be".
The rationale that only this call A61AJ could be made available, and
justifies an "extraordinary circumstance", just doesn't cut it either, in
my
opinion. This isn't the first place in the world where that applies
(some
may recall my six CQ WW CW D44BC operations in the 80's/90's). In many
countries, calls can be obtained, but only after weeks or months of
application, details, and waiting. For K3EST to effectively grant this
privilege to A61AJ operators is just not fair.
I believe that to truly uphold the integrity of this past contest that
the
A61AJ logs should be combined into a multi-multi, which it certainly was.
Vy 73
Jim Neiger N6TJ
_______________________________________________
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
|