You are correct ... you can not regulate what non-participants do in a
contest. However I am confused on what effect you feel non-participants
have on the results of a contest. If they don't participate, they have
no effect. What have I missed?
Doug
I'll run the race and I will never be the same again.
-----Original Message-----
From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
[mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of K1TTT
Sent: June 11, 2010 4:34 AM
To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] IARU 2009 and 2010 and ????
You can not regulate what non-participants do in a contest.
David Robbins K1TTT
e-mail: mailto:k1ttt@arrl.net
web: http://www.k1ttt.net
AR-Cluster node: 145.69MHz or telnet://dxc.k1ttt.net
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Edward [mailto:sawyered@earthlink.net]
> Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 13:42
> To: cq-contest@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] IARU 2009 and 2010 and ????
>
> Personally, I think the whole HQ thing has gotten out of hand in IARU.
> While the DA0HQ incident is not completely related, if a change is
about
> to
> be made to the contest concerning HQ stations, it should be changed to
> making them M/M at one location (just like any other contest) except
that
> the M/M is carrying the HQ flag of that country's society for the
contest
> and therefore is a mult. Then allow the HQs to remain competitive.
>
>
>
> How to solve the current problem? Well there is already a prevailing
rule
> out there on "excessive unique" isn't there? There should be some
> guidelines published and there should be word put out to the local
hams
> who
> might be inclined to do such that they need to work some other people
as
> well as their "desired" HQ station, otherwise they may inadvertently
> disqualify the desired HQ station for "too many uniques".
>
>
>
> Ed - N1UR
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|