CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] Merging Social Media and Contesting

To: donovanf@starpower.net
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Merging Social Media and Contesting
From: "rjairam@gmail.com" <rjairam@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 10:19:05 -0400
List-post: <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
Hi Frank,

Please don’t forget the contest advisory Committee as well. They are
contesting experts appointed in each division.

73
Ria
N2RJ

On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 9:29 AM <donovanf@starpower.net> wrote:

> Hi Sterling,
>
>
> If the originator of a live stream intends to compete in a contest,
> its incumbent on the competitor to comply with the rules.
> It doesn't matter if others haven't complied in the past.
> It doesn't matter if its hard to do.
>
>
> Correspond with your ARRL Director if you want different rules.
>
>
> 73
> Frank
> W3LPL
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: "Sterling Mann" <kawfey@gmail.com>
> To: donovanf@starpower.net
> Cc: "CQ-Contest@contesting.com" <cq-contest@contesting.com>
> Sent: Friday, March 13, 2020 2:38:46 AM
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Merging Social Media and Contesting
>
>
>
> Frank, we have differing opinions regarding the judgement of the W2RE's
> actions and the intent of the rules.
>
>
>
> His CQs, exchanges, and solicitations were not relayed over the internet.
> "Contacts made through repeaters, digipeaters, or gateways are not
> permitted. This applies to all forms of active relays or repeaters" is
> saying the contact may only take place without relays. No contact was made
> using the stream. To do this, an S&P who could not hear W2RE but W2RE could
> hear the S&Per would have to entirely use the audio of the stream to
> complete the contact. However, livestreams are always on a fairly
> significant delay (typically 30s), so one could not make a real-time QSO
> with him solely by listening to him on the stream.
> https://youtu.be/aydTZN4nLfU?t=20005 is one case where someone said "love
> the youtube channel" but I guarantee the S&Per made the QSO entirely via
> amateur radio due to this delay.
>
>
> Nor was he soliciting contacts via the stream. Solicitation implies that
> he was asking people to work him on a non-amateur means of communication,
> but I don't think that's the case here. To solicit a QSO, he would need to
> give a potential contact his frequency. Arguably he could have also said
> "find me on 20m" or "find my spots" and that may have been a violation. He
> says that he's at the bottom of the band here:
> https://youtu.be/aydTZN4nLfU?t=97 and to look on the dx cluster here:
> https://youtu.be/aydTZN4nLfU?t=623 . I do think saying that is not
> compliant to the rules, but I don't think posting a stream of his operation
> is automatically solicitation.
>
>
>
> The video does not show his frequency, which would have been a clear
> violation, but others independently posted his run freq to the chat after
> finding it on the cluster. Ideally, that should have been deleted, but I
> don't think W2RE is responsible for what other people are saying.
> Personally, I'm in agreement with others that say an unlimited category
> would be good here. Ideally the self-spotting rule would not apply to
> unlimited, keeping us from having to think too hard about what
> self-spotting is.
>
>
> Additionally, Ray seems to be aware of the chat in the beginning but later
> on, as they discuss what frequency he's on, he seems to ignore it. It may
> have been put out of his sight, in which case he's not responsible for
> viewers conspiring together to work him. At least I don't think he is. But
> this is where the problem has it's greatest merit - does the stream give
> him an advantage over other operators? Averaged out over time, I don't
> really think it does.
>
>
> The only rule I could see him potentially violating is giving stations
> that work him a non-amateur means of verifying the information in their
> QSO. An S&Per might botch the QSO, be watching the stream, wait 30s after
> the QSO, and hear Ray "repeat" it on stream. But is that on Ray, or on the
> other op? I would argue the S&Per is breaking the rules because that person
> is using a non-amateur means to complete the QSO, exactly like if the S&Per
> texted W2RE what his exchange is. It's analogous to a gun manufacturer
> being liable for deaths caused by their guns. The catch is in the texting
> case, W2RE is an accomplice to the S&Pers violation. On a stream, is W2RE
> an accomplice in the same way? You would have to say that W2REs purpose for
> the stream is to give his S&Pers a second chance, but the evidence doesn't
> lead me to that conclusion.
>
>
>
> Jeez. I spend way too much time writing emails on this list. I'm sorry to
> write a brick of text but this is CQ-contest, and it's the one place on the
> world wide web full of other contesters where discussions like these can be
> hashed out into action.
>
>
>
> -Sterling N0SSC
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 8:36 PM < donovanf@starpower.net > wrote:
>
>
> T his video of the RHR Live Stream reveals violations of four General
> Rules for all ARRL Contests:
>
>
> www.youtube.com/watch?v=aydTZN4nLfU
>
>
>
>
> What are the specific violations shown in the video?
>
>
>
> 1. CQs (i.e., soliciting a contact) were relayed via the internet
> 2. Exchanges (a necessary half of every QSO) were relayed via the internet
> 3. end-of-QSO solications (i.e., QRZs) were relayed via the internet
> 4. His 14155 frequency was shown multiple times during the live stream
> 5.
>
>
> What specific General Rules for all ARRL Contests were violated?
>
>
>
>
> 3.9. Contacts made through repeaters, digipeaters, or gateways are not
> permitted
>
>
> 1. 3.9.1. This applies to all forms of active relays or repeaters.
> 2. 3.10. The use of non-Amateur Radio means of communication (for example,
> Internet or telephone) to solicit a contact (or contacts) during the
> contest period is not permitted.
> 3. 3.14. In contests where spotting nets are permissible, spotting your
> own station or requesting another station to spot you is not permitted.
>
>
> 73
> Frank
> W3LPL
>
>
>
>
>
> 1.
> 2.
> 3.
> 4.
> 5.
> 6.
> 1.
> 7.
> 8.
> 9.
> _______________________________________________
> 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
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>