or make it like Field day rules, all stations and antennas withinn 1000
feet or whatever the distance is.
Joe WB9SBD
The Original Rolling Ball Clock
Idle Tyme
Idle-Tyme.com
http://www.idle-tyme.com
On 6/9/2010 7:53 PM, Richard DiDonna NN3W wrote:
> Jose, I too like IARU, but I think the HQ competition routine is becoming,
> frankly, stupid. Dozens of HQ stations spread across the band, acting as CQ
> monsters for a full 24 hours. I also think the vast number of hams that
> participate as HQ stations actually cuts down on participation as some of
> those ops would be single ops or part of different multi-singles.
>
> I would propose to terminate the notion of HQ competition as it currently
> stands. Replace it with a HQ competition that is limited to a M/M with no
> more than 6 transmitters transmitting at one time (i.e., no 12 HQ stations
> on at once from DA0HQ or TM0HQ), require that M/M be located within one
> station or no more than 10 or 20 miles distant. Or, throw out the notion of
> M/M and limit HQ stations to M/2.
>
> I think a lot of non HQ stations would benefit from this
>
> 73 Rich NN3W
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "José Nunes CT1BOH"<ct1boh@gmail.com>
> To:<cq-contest@contesting.com>;<k1zz@arrl.net>; "Kutzko, Sean, KX9X"
> <kx9x@arrl.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2010 9:48 AM
> Subject: [CQ-Contest] AO8HQ vs DA0HQ - ARRL did the worse in two decisions
>
>
> Many contesters have been following the AO8HQ versus DA0HQ case.
>
> This was documented in the following links below
>
> http://www.radio-sport.net/iaru_scoring09a.htm
>
> http://www.radio-sport.net/iaru_scoring09b.htm
>
> http://www.radio-sport.net/iaru_scoring09c.htm
>
> http://www.radio-sport.net/iaru_scoring09d.htm
>
> http://www.radio-sport.net/iaru_scoring09e.htm
> Without wanted to take part in the discussion of who is right or wrong in
> the case of AO8HQ versus DA0HQ I think the ARRL did the worse in two
> decisions:
>
> The first decision was a non decision.
> The ARRL opted not to decide in the claim of AO8HQ against DA0HQ.
> ARRL says URE has provided no evidence of their claim, but at the same time
> declared there would be no winner, giving some merit to AO8HQ claim
>
> The second decision is the worse it could be for the future of the HQ
> Competition and by consequence the future of the IARU Contest.
> ARRL says effective with the 2010 IARU HF World Championship, no
> adjudication of HQ station logs will be conducted by the ARRL.
> Instead of fixing the problem with HQ competition, ARRL removes HQ
> competition, forgetting that the HQ competition has been one element fueling
> participation from all over world HQ stations.
>
> I'm not a member of the ARRL but I'm the world record holder of he CW SOAB
> category from CT3EN and because of that I think I have a say.
> IARU is my second favorite contest after the CQWW. It is very sad the ARRL
> did not act up to its duty as the administrator of the IARU Contest.
> ARRL should have thought more about the future of the IARU Contest and less
> about the difficulty to taken a decision in the case of AO8HQ versus DA0HQ.
> Were the HQ societies involved in ARRL decision. Were the IARU participants
> involved in the decision?
>
> To end with a famous Winston Churchill quote:
> "It is no use saying we are doing our best. You have got to suceed in doing
> what is necessary."
>
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|