CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] : Reverse beacon of my own call?

To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] : Reverse beacon of my own call?
From: David Gilbert <xdavid@cis-broadband.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 10:44:08 -0700
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>

Not to mention loggers that autoload the exchange, loggers that SEND the exchange for you (I've operated entire CQWW contests without once touching the paddle), Super Check Partial that fills out the rest of the callsign for you, and the use of "Call History Files" generated by somebody other than yourself ... ALL of which constitute "any" type assistance for directly completing the QSO. If Bob wants to rely on "any type of assistance" as his definitive authority he has a lot of explaining to do.

Not so simple, eh?

The references to callsign identification and frequency determination are at least generally clear enough. The problem is that they falsely attribute those forms of assistance to CW Skimmer and the RBN *in general*. It's sloppy and shows a lack of understanding of those systems since both can easily be configured to specifically adhere to the intent of the rule ... i.e., no callsign identification or frequency information whatsoever. For an extreme analogy, I can legally use my computer to log my contacts and control my rig, but I can also illegally use it to capture cluster spots and share spotting information with others via Skype. Does that make it appropriate to ban the use of computers? For another, I can easily tune my amplifier to put out 2300 watts, but I don't. Should my particular amplifier (an HF-2500DX) be banned simply cause it *could* be used inappropriately?

As I said before, the rule has good intent but is poorly written, and I will remain comfortable with adhering to the intent of it rather than the unfortunate extrapolations of its poor construction. If anyone wants to disqualify me for that, they know my callsign.

Dave   AB7E



On 7/25/2013 9:07 AM, Jim Forsyth wrote:
On 7/25/2013 5:04 AM, Bob Naumann wrote:

>As I quoted earlier, (paraphrased now to avoid being redundant) single ops
>are precluded from using "any" type of assistance. (Simple, eh?)

Yes, that's certainly simple. I've been getting assistance from my computer sending CW for me. Clearly that is not allowed. I also have an electronic keyer which assists me by creating dots and dashes and spaces. I understand now that it would be wrong to use that.

I'm afraid your interpretation is dependent on presumptions that have no basis in the specific wording of the rules in question.

Jim, AF6O
_______________________________________________
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>