I have been amazed at how long the parsing of words in contest rules
could go on before someone raised the issue of ethics, morality and the
spirit of game. Thanks Shelby!
There will always be shades of grey in the interpretation of rules.
Parliaments and congresses around the world employ millions of lawyers
to write laws through which other lawyers drive large truck loads of
unethical bulldust.
It is up to you how you interpret the rules. It is up to you how you
apply the rules. There are those pathetic individuals that disregard all
rules. There are those that err on the side of caution. Whatever you do
affects mainly your own conscience. I have enough trouble looking after
my conscience without telling you how to take care of yours!
Some of the idiot arguments on this reflector about the word
"assistance" show a blatant disregard for the history, let alone the
wording of the rules.
I am a cautious rule interpreter that is why I hold an old record for
assisted operation in Australia. I was given information in a contest
that I then used - silly! My conscience forced me to enter as assisted
even though it only involved one contact and one multiplier! However, I
don't look down on those who would still have entered as single op.
On your own head be it!
If you've got a better set of words for a rule submit it to the contest
committee and save us the boredom. I've been a member of this reflector
since the very early days when my wife got it at her Uni address and
brought it home on a disc for me each night! We didn't have any internet
at home. This last discussion has come as near as anything to getting me
to sign out.
Martin VK7GN
<mailto:VK7GN@Bigpond.com> VK7GN@Bigpond.com
Tel +61 3 62602600
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|