Tim,
IMHO, there's a big difference between an "operating activity" that has, at
most, a relative handful of stations on the WARC bands... such as a DXpedition
or two, or at most, 1 or 2 W1AW/# stations on each band/mode at one time, or a
pittance of POTA stations QRV... and a contest that will encourage multiple
stations (dozens to hundreds to more) to be on the WARC bands at the same time.
The Centennial activity was a special case... and even if it was called a "QSO
Party" it was not a contest in the traditional sense, in that it took place
over the course of a year, with multiple stations only operating for a week at
a time from only a few states/territories at a time. It was not hundreds or
thousands of operators all trying to use the band(s) at once, in a short (4, 6,
12, 24, 36, 48 consecutive hours) period of time.
It is also, IMHO, an ethical breach with the non-contesting or
minimal-contesting portions of the Amateur community. Literally for decades,
we (the contesters in the community) have been saying that contesting is not
supported on the WARC bands, at all, ever. Period. If this proceeds, it will
be at best a stain on us. It will give the appearance of condoning activity
that we ourselves have decried for years. And it will be used against us, by
the more vocal of the anti-contest contingent... something on the lines of
"they promised there'd be no contesting on the WARC bands. And then there was.
They lied. If they'll lie about this, then they'll lie about sharing the
bands, and (etc etc etc)"
This was and is a bad idea. The WARC bands should not be used for this. Not
now, and not for the forseeable future.
IMHO. YMMV. VWPBL(STn).
73, ron w3wn
-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Shoppa <tshoppa@gmail.com>
To: Frank Donovan W3LPL (Frank Donovan W3LPL) <donovanf@erols.com>
Cc: cq-contest <cq-contest@contesting.com>; PVRC Reflector
<pvrc@mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Mon, Aug 30, 2021 2:09 pm
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] [PVRC] A DX Contest on the WARC bands -- A terrible
idea
Frank, is it as simple that they made the mistake in calling it a
"Contest"? If they called it an "Activity tracker" or "QSO Party" would
that have been better?
The ARRL encouraged activity on all bands and modes in 2014 with their
Centennial QSO Party. Including awarding points for WARC bands. And it
didn't cause any problems. http://www.arrl.org/centennial
Tim N3QE
On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 12:54 PM <donovanf@erols.com> wrote:
> The URL for the Southeast DX Club's badly thought out DX
> contest rules that include contesting in the WARC bands is:
>
> https://t-rexsoftware.com/sedxc/100_watts_and_a_wire/index.htm
>
> I urge you to immediately state your objections to the SEDXC
> club president at: c.catledge@gmail.com
>
> Hopefully this very well respected DX club (at least until now)
> will correct their egregious error before Sept 1st.
>
> If no correction is made, all self respecting contesters should
> boycott this contest in protest.
>
> 73
> Frank
> W3LPL
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> PVRC mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/pvrc
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:PVRC@mailman.qth.net
> Message delivered to tshoppa@gmail.com
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
_______________________________________________
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
|