Sounds like we need to move these ultra competitive people into their
own class. IE SO2R that has been tossed around for ages.
So the best of the best can dictate what happens to the rest of us in
the contest? People seem to forget without all the non competitive
people, who you expect to religiously show up over and over again while
you continue to criticize and have little regard for, you would have
very few people to actually work.
Where does it stop? If I can interleave every Morse characters across
10 or 100 frequencies I should be allowed to do it and not worry about
what it does to every other user of the band? I don't think so. We
have rules and too many rules because people continue to push the
limited rules as much as possible and continue to do what is not good
for the hobby or contesting to meet their personal goals.
When you take the fun away from the regular guy, he will go find
something else to do. There are many many other outlets for
entertainment today.
W0MU
On 3/16/2017 5:21 AM, 4O3A wrote:
Advanced SO operating is skill based. I know many contesters who are
not capable to run SO2R at all. They are not competitive any more.
We are competing who has better skill. New improved SO operating
techniques are a necessity and I hope this will never end. It keeps
our sport exciting. CW monsters with lot of practice on Morse runner
or RUFZ are amazing to me, and better than me. They will be much
better in listening two synchronized pile ups and it's all about the
skill. I will not complain and ask contest organizers to "tie their
hands" with limitation in rules. I will rather spent some time
practicing and trying to be competitive.
73
Ranko
On 3/16/2017 1:52 AM, Radio K0HB wrote:
I agree that SO-Split is equally hoggish if it consumes two QRG's in a
single band segment.
On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 17:45 Rudy Bakalov <r_bakalov@yahoo.com> wrote:
The same argument can be made for working so split. Sounds like the two
use cases of using extra spectrum are treated differently. You can't
pick
and chose and favor one vs the other.
Rudy N2WQ
Sent using a tiny keyboard. Please excuse brevity, typos, or
inappropriate autocorrect.
On Mar 15, 2017, at 3:54 PM, Radio K0HB <kzerohb@gmail.com> wrote:
Helmut, I don't think that this resistance to interleaved-CQ is
"anti-innovation" at all, but resistance to "excess occupancy".
By any reasonable measure, running interleaved CQs on two QRG's in the
same
band consumes two operating channels on that band. In the existing
period
of limited propagation, many would consider such double-occupancy of a
finite resource to be selfish, not innovative.
Suppose for a moment, that I could "innovate" a method of
interleaving 10
CQs on a single band. Would you applaud my innovation, or would you
curse
my hoggery?
On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 11:07 Helmut Mueller <helmut@photo42.de>
wrote:
Hi Guys.
These "new" techniques are just the evolution of contest, deal
with it!
There are different contests out there who have different rules and
smart
people REALLY understand the rules and apply every effort that is
allowed
by the rules! This is called contesting art or INOVATION!
You want to make all contests the same? Keep whining!
Centurys ago someone came up with stacked antennas: I bet there were
people moaning about this.
Centurys ago someone came up with computer logging and keying: I bet
there
were people moaning about this.
Centurys ago someone came up with SO2R: People were moaning about
this.
There are many more examples like this ... now we have SO2RUN or
Interleave QSOs!
I call this innovation! It is fantastic!
This is from the PJ2T website:
Dedicated to fun, international friendship, and advancement of the
contesting art through superior operating technique and maximum
application
of technology
Could not say it any better!
73
Helmut DF7ZS
df7zs.de
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] Im Auftrag
von
W0MU Mike Fatchett
Gesendet: Wednesday, 15 March, 2017 04:50 AM
An: cq-contest@contesting.com
Betreff: Re: [CQ-Contest] Prohibiting Interleaved CQs on Two or More
Frequencies in the Same Band
If you agree that the rules need to be changed, you need to make
your
ARRL Division Directors aware of your feelings. I believe there is a
meeting coming up soon and I believe that this item can be taken
up at
that
time.
Alternating CQ's on different bands is pretty common on RTTY. I
think
that this practice should be allowed and monitored to make sure that
stations are adhering to the one transmitted signal at a time for
Single
ops.
I can only image the situation where we have a wall of stations at
14.150 going up and 14.347 going down for alternating cq's. Add in EU
and
the Caribbean and we have a big mess.
W0MU
On 3/14/2017 5:08 PM, Dick Green WC1M wrote:
I strongly support Frank's proposal, but the prohibition should
apply
to
Single Ops, too, as it does in CQ WW.
I realize that multi-op stations are more likely to be equipped
to do
alternating CQs on the same band (A and B radios with two ops on each
band,
multiple antennas per band with good isolation), but it certainly
can be
done in an SO2R station. If only one band is open enough to run, then
the
impact on the spectrum is the same.
Is there a compelling reason to allow Single Ops to do
alternating CQs
on the same band?
Actually, I think a case could be made for banning alternating CQs
altogether. I'd regret that because I've sometimes used it as a
Single
Op
to boost rate or fight boredom, but it definitely does use up more
spectrum. If only two bands are open in a big contest, that
spectrum is
likely to be very limited. What if a rare mult running low power
can't
find
a place to CQ because the alternating CQers are taking up more than
their
share of space? What about the impact on non-contesters?
73. Dick WC1M
-----Original Message-----
From: donovanf@starpower.net [mailto:donovanf@starpower.net]
Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2017 2:01 PM
To: CQ-Contest Reflector <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Prohibiting Interleaved CQs on Two or More
Frequencies in the Same Band
I recommend that alternating CQs on two or more frequencies on
the same
band be prohibited immediately in all ARRL HF contests, exactly as
it is
now prohibited in all CQ WW DX Contests and for multi-operators in
the
IARU
HF Championship.
The reason for my recommendation is that the recent success of the
PJ4G team in CQing on alternate frequencies on the same band
(both on
20 and 15 meters) in the recent ARRL SSB DX Contest will
inevitably be
applied -- very soon -- by other multi-operator competitors in
future
ARRL contests. Unfortunately this will be to the very considerable
detriment of other HF spectrum users
-- both contesters and non-contesters -- because of the very limited
available spectrum on every HF band below 28 MHz.
The obvious course of action is to simply apply existing IARU HF
Championship rule 4.3.2.1 to all multi-operator categories in all
ARRL
HF
contests.
4.3.2.1. Alternating CQs on two or more frequencies on the same
band is
not permitted.
http://www.arrl.org/iaru-hf-championship
A CAC sub-committee is currently engaged in a Rules Consolidation
Project to consolidate “The General Rules of all ARRL Contests”
“The General Rules for all ARRL contests Below 30 MHz” and
individual
contest rules into a single rule set for each of the ARRL HF
Contests.
In addition to the consolidation of the rules structure, the ARRL
Programs and Services Committee (PSC) asked the team to develop any
accompanying commentary they choose as to areas where the perceive
that
the
rules might benefit from revision and, where appropriate, to suggest
revised language.
http://www.arrl.org/files/file/About%20ARRL/Committee%20Reports/2016/J
uly/Doc_24_0716.pdf
While the CAC's role is solely to respond to projects and issues
assigned by the ARRL Programs and Services Committee; the CAC
chairman
can
recommend future CAC projects and issues to the PSC.
73
Frank
W3LPL
_______________________________________________
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
--
73, de Hans, K0HB
--
"Just a boy and his radio"™
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
--
73, de Hans, K0HB
--
"Just a boy and his radio"™
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.8007 / Virus Database: 4756/14123 - Release Date:
03/16/17
_______________________________________________
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
|