----- Original Message ----
From: Paul J. Piercey <p.piercey@nl.rogers.com>
To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 2:45:57 PM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW defined "single op"
OK, so here's my beef. If that's so cut and dried, why does one contest
sponsor declare that a single op using spotting networks is assisted in one
contest while, in another, calls the same thing a "multi-op"?
----------------------------
Paul,
What I think would be *very* cool is if IARU Region 2 would consider appointing
a contesting committee to draft up definitions that member societies would use
to form their specific rules.
In the mean time...
K1TTT pointed out the issue. Different sponsors have different rules (with
differing goals and outcomes). It is always best to check the rules for the
particular event that you are entering and ask that sponsor any clarifying
questions.
What I have a problem with is that sponsors will (almost) never then put a
communication out to the general public as to what they just communicated...so
that everyone is again on the same page.
Ev, W2EV
____________________________________________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.
http://new.mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|