This point brings up again another ARRL contest rule that has long outlived its
usefulness:
General Rules
- 3.5.A transmitter used to contact one or more stations may not be
subsequently used under any other call during the contest period, except for
family stations where more than one call has been issued, and then only if the
second call sign is used by a different operator. (The intent of this rule is
to accommodate family members who must share a rig and to prohibit manufactured
or artificial contacts.)
As best I can remember this rule goes back to the days of paper logs when
serious log checking for "manufactured or artificial" contacts was not
practical. But why not let there be more workable stations, even if some of
them are the same person using the same transmitter? For years I've done CW SS
by visiting several other stations for six hours or so. The Sunday rates keep
getting better, and I've never heard of anybody who thought a contact with me
from those stations was "artificial". But why make it necessary to spend time
driving to other stations, and to make other people fit with my schedule and
vice versa, etc.?
CQ does not have such a rule for their contests. I've had great time in their
160 meter contests firing up on the second night with a new callsign. Great
rates, and most of the people worked are people I've worked the first night,
who would have not had that extra QSO under the ARRL rule.
If there are to be "artificial" contacts, it will much more likely involve
somebody who is not seriously in the contest, or somebody who is not going to
submit a log for those QSOs. But if necessary there could be some limits on
second callsign usage, such as minimum off times before returning to use a
previously used callsign.
I urge the Board of Directors to ask the Contest Advisory Committee to look
into this rule change.
73 - Jim K8MR
And I hope to get on for CW SS with two or more callsigns, with different
radios, from different locations in WCF.
-----Original Message-----
From: Barry W2UP <w2up.co@gmail.com>
Sent: Tue, Oct 27, 2020 7:42 pm
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] ARRL DX Contest Multioperator Station Guidelines
Jim makes good points. By aggregating a number of single ops into a new
multi category under one callsign, you're cutting down the number of
workable stations. It just doesn't make sense. Why create something for
which there was no demand?
Barry W2UP
On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 5:23 PM rjairam@gmail.com <rjairam@gmail.com> wrote:
> Mind you - this is not together with the conventional M/M category. This is
> separate. I think this is where the confusion lies.
>
> 73
> Ria
> N2RJ
>
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 6:05 PM Jim Brown <k9yc@audiosystemsgroup.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On 10/25/2020 7:23 PM, rjairam@gmail.com wrote:
> > > By allowing them to stay at home and use the same call, but follow ALL
> > > (every single one) of the existing M/M rules, they can still play.
> >
> > This defies logic! Operators who have stations can "play" at home using
> > their own calls, which gives other contesters more stations to work. I
> > see that as a big plus! What am I missing? It's not the CALL of the
> > contest station, it's the station, including it's antenna system, and
> > its operators, that make it competitive.
> >
> > I've operated at N6RO as part of M/M teams and as part of dozens of FD
> > and county expedition teams for CQP and 7QP. The fun of doing so is the
> > in-person camaraderie, learning from others, and, in the case of the
> > expeditions, setting up and tearing down the stations, NONE of which
> > happens under this rule change.
> >
> > The N6RO team has spent the last six months reconfigured itself to
> > operate M/M remotely. More of the true spirit of ham radio,
> > station-building and learning new stuff to meet new challenges. FAR
> > better than driving several hundred miles to box-top operate a station
> > that someone else built!
> >
> > 73, Jim K9YC
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|