CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

[CQ-Contest] Thoughts on contesting.

To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Thoughts on contesting.
From: DXer <hfdxmonitor@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2017 12:41:34 -0400
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
Dear Contesters,

Don't be shy to use the delete key now. :^)

There are many different opinions on how to equalize, and regulate, contests. Most of the current difficulties have to do with advances in technology, and what they have enabled. The contesting world is still struggling with how to deal with skimmers, RBN, remotes, even the internet.

The logistics of contesting make it impossible for all competitors to have the same starting conditions, even within the same categories. We operate from different places. These places are disperse, not only in a city, but all over the world. We don't have referees in-loco, but rely on wideband recordings. The hardware available/used is different.

The only exception to almost all of the above is the WRTC, but in this case another can of worms opens, that being how the participants get selected. Past performance on a number of designated contests is one criteria, but also invites and sponsorship. Not totally fair, some would say.

The first thing we must accept is that it's never going to be a level playing field, even when all the rules are followed. If this is what we're seeking, while a noble goal, it's a waste of time and energy.

We must deal with what is possible and concrete. Taking 'intentions' into account is problematic. Intentions have cultural undertones. Hamradio has always avoided getting into these (cultural) discussions.

Hamradio is legislated by countries, and regulated by national administrations, as such, violations to any laws and regulations must be first and foremost in the minds of contest committees. Lest we be known as a bunch of 'outlaws', and the possible consequences derived from this 'reputation'.

All said, I think the CC enforcement priority should focus on:

Legal/Regulatory

1) Good/clean TX signal;
2) Operation within the designated allocations;
3) Single TX signal per band at any one time;
4) Technology permitting, legal max power level verification.

Contesting

1) Declared assisted, or unassisted entry;
2) Unassisted have no self-spotting privileges;
3) Same declared TX/RX location, including remotes;
4) Technology permitting, category max power verification;
5) Log padding, and the other extreme, QSO discarding.

I'm sure there are many more, both legal/regulatory, and contesting items, that need verification/enforcement.

My point again: even when all the rules and regulations are followed, contesting will never be played on a level playing field. The dictionary definition of the adjective 'fair' may be met, but the adverb definition of 'fair' is a different story.

Apologies for the long winded message.

73 de Vince, VA3VF







_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • [CQ-Contest] Thoughts on contesting., DXer <=