Ham-1 wrote in his SS CW comments:
" Good guy kudos to [Ham-2] and [Ham-3] who took the time to spot [Ham-4]'s
section 'needs.' "
I did not mention the real calls because they are, in fact, all "good guys",
and I'm sure that none of them thought he/she was doing anything wrong. And I
guess there is a body of opinion on this Reflector that says it's OK. To me,
it's a very dark shade of gray. Perhaps Ham-4 only mentioned it casually
("How's it going, Suzie?" "Oh, I still need Canal Zone."), or maybe Ham-4 was
using "directed CQs". However, it's clear to me that Ham-2 and Ham-3 were
assisting Ham-4, even if she/he did not know it. Perhaps they were even using
non-amateur-radio means to arrange contacts for her/him during the test.
I propose this guidance:
1. "Unassited" directed CQs are okay when used as "any Canal Zone there,"
and expecting the pile-up to stand by so you can hear CZ.
2. "Unassisted" directed CQs are not okay if you are (even) hinting
to get somebody to send the needed mult's to you.
3. Op's at other stations provide no more assistance than plain spotting --
call and freq only; not "needs CZ".
(From me, this is a concession to the inevitability of Packet spotting,
which has ruined ham radio :>) )
4. Op's at other stations do not tell the "unassisted" op -- even on the
same band,
where everybody can hear -- the needed mult's freq, or any other info that
would tempt
him/her into assisted or multi-op actions.
(Exceptions: "You have a strong second harmonic, and there's a big
pile-up
calling you on that freq." Or "QSD; vy hard to cpy u".)
Just my opinion, but if there is general agreement and if the rules are not
clear then we should adjust the rules (another harder-than-it-sounds problem).
73, Art K3KU
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|