CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] Preliminary 2010 CQ WPX SSB/CW Contest Rules

To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Preliminary 2010 CQ WPX SSB/CW Contest Rules
From: Rick Tavan N6XI <rtavan@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 16:23:57 -0800
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
The M/S category should be IDENTICAL to Single Op Assisted except that
multiple operators share the operating responsibility. Eliminating
multiplier stations is an improvement but the new multi-single rule still
handicaps this category with respect to Single Op by restricting the number
of band changes. A high-stamina single op (especially with SO2R during
relatively slow periods) can out-score a group operating an identical
station by grabbing mults on other bands at any time. Limiting the number of
band changes makes M/S totally different from Single Op and reduces its
value as a training vehicle.

I agree that using lockout systems to game the rules such that two stations
are really active at the same time, interleaving QSOs, the dreaded
"octopus," is unethical. That's what provoked the various ten-minute and
band-change limits. NCCC got it right with CQP, limiting the number of
OPERATOR CHANGES per hour. But please let whoever is in the chair have the
same band change flexibility as a Single Op, including SO2R.

The argument that you can’t police operator changes is specious. We can’t
police the number of operators at all. We can’t police power. We don’t even
police location unless there is an egregious violation. So why police band
changes? Let ‘em happen! If someone uses an octopus to cheat, they’ll be
discovered eventually. Then DQ all participants for five years.

73,

/Rick N6XI
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

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