[Top] [All Lists]

[CQ-Contest] HA: Aniother rules/remote RX issue

To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: [CQ-Contest] HA: Aniother rules/remote RX issue
From: "Vladimir Sidarau" <vs_otw@rogers.com>
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2012 09:16:32 -0400
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
It would be better to outlaw it completely because if checking propagation
without solicitation of contacts remains to be legal, although not
recommended, it may totally disrupt the very idea of contesting because it
lefts less space for normal QSOs.
Imagine, say, 50 super power HP stations not making contacts but just
"checking/monitoring propagation" on 160 m (!!!) nonstop and simultaneously
and you will understand what I mean. 
Or think about a great LEGAL opportunity to hold "your" frequency for 48

Please do your best to stop it right away and totally outlaw it in the rules
for all categories.

Thanks for your consideration.


Vladimir VE3IAE


-----Исходное сообщение-----
От: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
[mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] От имени Dick Green WC1M
Отправлено: June-02-12 3:17 PM
Кому: 'brian coyne'; cq-contest@contesting.com
Тема: Re: [CQ-Contest] Aniother rules/remote RX issue

Brian makes an excellent point that checking propagation via the RBN can
result in "false spots" that waste time for Unlimited and Multi-op stations.
I wouldn't outlaw the practice for that reason, but would certainly put a
section in the ARRL Contest FAQ discouraging it.

73, Dick WC1M

> -----Original Message-----
> From: brian coyne [mailto:g4odv@yahoo.co.uk]
> Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2012 7:41 AM
> To: cq-contest@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Aniother rules/remote RX issue
> 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 mailing list
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>