I guess I feel fortunate. I don't care much for SS and get on so as to
help my Contesting Club. Because of that, I will probably never come close
to the time limit...so I ain't gonna worry about it.
73,
Jeff
K3OQ
On Tuesday, October 29, 2013, W0MU Mike Fatchett wrote:
> Can you please site the misinformation in my post?
>
> Can you site the rules that allow you to operate more than 24 hours in
> sweepstakes? Where is the written official notification to all contesters
> that this is now an accepted practice? The sponsor stated an opinion to a
> select individual or group. If the rules have changed then simply update
> them on the website so EVERYONE is aware of it.
>
> Mike W0MU
>
> On 10/29/2013 6:25 AM, w5gn@mxg.com wrote:
>
>> I agree that MU is more interested in spouting misinformation that
>> sharing useful comments, and sealawyering is the appropriate label,
>> when he tries to pick apart the rules for scoring to create his
>> own constraints that the sponsor has clearly defined don't exist.
>>
>> Barry
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of
>> Radio K0HB
>> Sent: Monday, October 28, 2013 6:36 PM
>> To: W0MU Mike Fatchett
>> Cc: cq-contest@contesting.com
>> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Ethics of operating overtime in SS
>>
>> The contest sponsor has stated that you can operate beyond 24 hours but
>> only your first 24 hours will be scored.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Thus there is no competitive reward to the station which operates more
>> than 24 hours, yet if a player elects to continue to dispense Q's
>> (especially in a scarce mult such as VE4) it is a benefit to other players.
>> There is no downside that I can discern, other than the overtime station
>> may actually boost the score of a direct competitor, thus disadvantage
>> themselves.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> The sea-lawyering in protest puzzles me, particularly when the sponsor
>> has blessed the practice.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 73, de Hans, K0HB
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 6:19 PM, W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu@w0mu.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> The rules are pretty clear. Apparently what they are doing wit the
>> logs is contrary to the rules. Maybe the rules should be more clearly
>> written. Why have rules that you don't enforce?
>> It is pretty clear that the rules say to operate 24 of the 30. They do
>> not say if you operate more than 24 hours your score will be
>> determined by the first 24 hours of operation.
>> So what is it ARRL?
>> Mike W0MU
>> On 10/28/2013 2:24 PM, Ed Muns wrote:
>>
>> It may be against your interpretation of the rules but it is how the
>> ARRL handles the logs.
>>
>> Ed W0YK
>>
>>
>> Kelly VE4XT wrote:
>>
>> That might work for WW with a 'classic' overlay, but it's against the
>> rules in SS. They specifically say off time is 'without operating.'
>>
>> 2.4. All entries may operate no more than 24 of the 30 hours.
>> 2.5. Off periods may not be less than 30 minutes in length.
>> 2.6. Times off and on must be clearly noted in paper logs. In
>> electronically-submitted Cabrillo logs, off-times are calculated by
>> the log-checking software.
>> 2.7. Listening time counts as operating time.
>>
>> When your 24 hours are up, they're up. The rule was designed that way
>> to prevent operators from working the entire contest and only
>> claiming credit for the best 24.
>>
>> There's no provision for operating more than 24 hours and only
>> claiming 24 hours, nor is there a provision for leaving the receiver
>> on so as not to miss a band opening.
>>
>> Which doesn't mean you cannot start a separate entry by operating at
>> a different location under a different call sign and starting at zero
>> QSOs and zero mults.
>>
>> 73, kelly
>> ve4xt
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 10/28/13 12:44 PM, "Ed Muns" <w0yk@msn.com> wrote:
>>
>> Please don't submit two logs under the same callsign, each from a
>>
>> different
>>
>> part of the contest period. The most recent submitted log will
>> replace
>>
>> all
>>
>> prior logs.
>>
>> Instead, include all QSOs in one log and let the log check software
>> score the first 24 hours. No one is penalized for operating beyond
>> a time
>>
>> limit.
>>
>> The additional QSOs are not counted in your score, but they are
>> needed to verify the other logs. Any QSO left out will cause a NIL
>> in the other
>>
>> log.
>>
>> Ed W0YK
>>
>>
>>
>> Hans K0HB wrote:
>>
>> Submit a log for the first 24 hours; then a second check log for the
>> remaining Q's. Who would fault the ethics of that?
>>
>> ______________________________**_________________
>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/**mailman/listinfo/cq-contest<http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest>
>>
>> ______________________________**_________________
>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/**mailman/listinfo/cq-contest<http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest>
>>
>> ______________________________**_________________
>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/**mailman/listinfo/cq-contest<http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest>
>>
>> ______________________________**_________________
>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>> CQ-Con
>>
>>
> ______________________________**_________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/**mailman/listinfo/cq-contest<http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest>
>
--
Jeff Embry, K3OQ
FM19nb
ARCI #11643, FPQRP #-696,
QRP-L # 67, NAQCC #25, ARS #1733
AMSAT LM-2263
--
WWWDWOA?
(What Would We Do Without Acronyms?)
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|