[Top] [All Lists]

[CQ-Contest] Re : Log Analysis.

To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Re : Log Analysis.
From: "Neil Powell" <neilpowell1@eircom.net>
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2009 22:35:57 +0100
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>

I personally think as a regular participate in M/S category that it has got out 
of hand with many stations that I personally think should at a minimum be in 
M/2 or even M/M taking part with allsorts of dubious methods of interlocks same 
band working etc, etc.  My understanding of the rules is very much the same as 
yours, one radio to run with and another to work mults with which is what we 
have always done and have resisted the temptation to do anything else as I feel 
this was not really the spirit in which the rules were devised, not to take 
away from anyone who has dreamed up anyway to legally expand on these.   The 
main problem is it's very easy if you were inclined to break these rules and 
not be caught as the "10 minute" rule leaves too much open, i.e if you had 5 
stations in the shack one on each band what's to stop you having an op on every 
band looking for mults and then deciding which op is going to get the "10 
minute" slot to work the mults he's found.

I think there needs to be another category below M/S which is as you say One 
transceiver and nothing else, so that it becomes the operator judgment weather 
to run or dedicate time to Search and pounce for a few mults.  Do away with the 
10 minute rule and replace it with a limited number of band changes say 6 so 
that if you change band work a station and come back to the band you were on 
that's 2 band changes, this would eliminate any use of additional radios on 
other bands. I think this would also encourage small clubs or groups to give it 
a go as less harware is required and could be done with less personel aswell.

Neil EI3JE.

>>I can think of at least one scenario in which this could happen which >>would 
>>be perfectly consistent with the rules.  There are probably more.

>>Doug Smith W9WI

Thanks Doug and others. I did not say that this was illegal, perhaps my post 
implied it as I had a couple of offlist mails which assured me that there would 
be only one transmitted signal at any given moment. I have no problem accepting 
that as fact.

I am way behind the game. My understanding was that the 2nd station was for 
finding and working mlt's, my simple mind never envisaged the 2nd station could 
be used for s&p on the same band as the running station, nor I doubt did the 
Committee when they drew up the rules.

Technology (and enterprise) has moved on into realms way beyond the intention 
of the rules, or as some of us will say the 'spirit' of the rules.
We cannot blame the individual groups, peer pressure requires that they compete 
and innovate. I have (offboard) been charged with wanting to return to the 
'stone age' with my suggestion of one transceiver and one receiver, I prefer to 
look upon it as a return to basics, to follow the rules as they were intended. 
What guys fail to realise is that it would be a level playingfield decided by 
operator skills on the day and not some bright new gizmo/brainwave hatched in 
the workshop. 

Creativity is to be encouraged, we applaud Committee's efforts to accommodate 
new ideas, methods and technology and that is where some of these entries 
belong rather than pushing the boundaries of a section which should, prima 
facie, be simple and straightforward.

73  Brian  5B4AIZ  (C4Z).
CQ-Contest mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>