An intelligent reading of the RULES, which only two posters seem to be unable
to do,
show they ONLY address the SCORING and not what you can do with respect to
operating
hours.
Plus we have already had a posting (prior to MANY of YOUR recent posts, Mike)
that
cited exactly how the ARRL processing of the log works, which legalizes any
contacts
(NOT FOR YOUR SCORE) after the 24 hours of SCORED QSOs have been counted.
As K0HB pointed out, sea-lawyering is not needed here.
73
Barry, EI/W5GN
-----Original Message-----
From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of W0MU
Mike Fatchett
Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 9:51 AM
To: w5gn@mxg.com; 'Radio K0HB'; CQ Contest
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Ethics of operating overtime in SS
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
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>>> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>>> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>> _______________________________________________
>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|