> >So...
> >
> > OK: "CQ Contest, looking for VO1, looking for VO1,
> > CQ Contest, looking for VO1, CQ..."
> >Not OK: "CQ Contest, Anyone know where there's a VO1,
> > CQ Contest..."
> >
> >Now *that* seems a rather ridiculous difference, but
> >I guess if it makes one feel better...
> >
> >73 Mike N2MG
>
> ------------ REPLY FOLLOWS ------------
>
> The difference is not ridiculous at all. In one case you are calling
> CQ directly to the mult you want, in the other case you are asking a
> third party who knows where the mult is to feed the info to you. A
> huge difference. One involves third party assistance, the other does
> not.
This feels more like a very technical argument - which focus's on the
definition of the words - rather than what the end result is.
Either one of the can generate a response from a helpful person, who
either just heard a VO1 or saw one spotted on packet. I would agree
only that the second comment is a bit more likely to produce that
response.
As far as a gentleman's agreement as proposed by K6LA:
> 1. We will not call CQ indicating a needed section;
Check.
> 2. We will not solicit, over the air, during the contest, information
> regarding a needed section;
Check. (The lawyers will have to fix the wording of this so that I can
actually work the multiplier when I hear him on the second radio - since
I am sort of solicting his precedence/check/section when I call him).
> 3. We will not set up schedules prior to the contest;
Check.
> 4. We will not request, prior to or during the contest, that we be passed
> any unsolicited information during the contest;
Check.
> 5. We may act on any information overheard on the air so long as we have not
> solicited that information in any way;
Almost check. If someone comes by and tells me where the VO1 is, I like
the reponse proposed earlier that you say you are operating unassisted and
can not accept any assistance in spotting (as indicated in the rules).
It doesn't matter if the information is solicited or not. It helps you
find the multliplier - so it is assistance. I don't know how anyone can
think otherwise.
I believe this gentleman's agreement has been widely accepted already by
the majority to the top unassisted single ops. It just hasn't been
published to this extent.
While reviewing the SS CW logs - I have found at least one case of a
unassisted operator working a busted callsign on packet - within a few
minutes of the busted call being spotted. The QSO was a dupe for the
station being worked. Let's assume for a minute that I find a few more
cases like this in their log (I haven't put the work in yet) and prove
without any doubt that they were using packet. What would you think the
natural progression should be?
I would think something like this would be right:
1. Send a letter to the station - without the data - and ask if they have
submitted their log in the wrong category. If they change it - no harm
done (except they should be put on a packet watch list).
2. If the claim they were unassisted - I would think presenting the
data and asking for a response would be next (a la FCC). However, most
any response I could think of would result in DQing their log.
The question I wanted to ask was - if he is DQ'd - basically caught lying,
what should the penalty be with respect to future contests?
Tree N6TR
tree@kkn.net
PS: If anyone out there reading this suddenly remembers they entered
the wrong category in the SS - now would be a good time to resubmit
your log.
PPS: Packet sucks. I can go on and on about why - but this isn't the
right reflector.
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|