This debate whilst a perennial one has been extremely well debated. Whilst the
consensus of opinion is a 'No' vote those who say 'Yes' put their points very
well. The problem stems from how rules are worded and we get bogged down in the
minutia of interpretation or the view that if an action is not particularly
excluded then it should be allowed.
It has been commented that most guys who read these pages are old 'died in the
wool' troglodytes who wish to maintain tradition and resist change, which may
be partly true but not in the matter of resisting change. Innovation and
technical advances have been recognised, a class has been created but there are
still guys who wish to stay with SO and stretch the envelope - why?
We wish to maintain tradition because that is what we enjoy doing and wish to
continue doing it. When 'Assisted Class' was first introduced there was a
stigma label attached to it and it was used only by guys who put in a part time
effort or were chasing dxcc counters or whatever. Not so now, the numbers are
growing, possibly aided by reports of yellow and red cards awarded, and will
continue to grow.
It is significant that when these questions are posted here that they come not
from newbies but experienced contesters who know very well what the phrase
'Single Operator' means. A gentle reminder here of contest rules where we all
declare that we operated the station 'within the spirit of the contest'.
Anything outside our understanding of those original drafted rules is not
subscribing to the ham spirit of fair play, including any play on wording.
It is understandable, but regrettable IMO, that many CC's outside the USA have
taken the easy option by allowing assistance in all classes thus avoiding
inevitable accusations, complaints that will follow an event but we do not wish
to see our major contests go this way. Innovation and new technology is great -
go use it and forget this mindset that SO is for the elite.
Bob W5OV says it all here about the time served understanding of the term
'Single Operator'. ........
Where you draw the line is where it involves:
1) other operators
2) remote systems beyond the physical limits of the station
3) local hardware that replaces the operator in locating, decoding and
identifying signals
I would add something here about the original post.
An op who calls cq in this manner may or may not hear anything from the RBN but
others will, so we have the additional objection to having our time wasted in
calling him, particulary if he is not satified with one string but eminates
several and repeats at intervals during the event when more people become
involved. Imagine then the scenario where somebody who does not work him spots
him (and we all see spots after the event from guys who did not call/work us)
that adds up to a lot of wasted time imposed on others.Whilst this is going on
he is busy working his first radio. I do not appreciate having my time wasted
in this manner, and that goes for SO2R ops too who queue their cq's whilst they
have a busy run on their first radio. It is inconsiderate and selfish to
command two parts of the spectrum on busy bands. Neither of these actions are
within the ham spirit.
73 Brian 5B4AIZ/C4Z
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|