Tom Lindtveit Tom at falatech.com
Wed Dec 11 09:26:12 EST 1996

I gotta tell ya Jim, it scares me that someone actually thought this up.

>I am cross posting because it is both=20
>a score posting as well as a CONTESTING topic of discussion:

>N6IG  SOHP   549/8/73 =3D 96,714 points    11.1 hours
>W6AX  SOHP   558/9/76 =3D 102,000 points    8.8 hours  (op  N6IG)

>These were two entries that I operated as a single-op, unassisted, FROM =

>THE SAME STATION.  W6AX is a club call for which I am the trustee...

>Net result:  I had a lot of fun.  I would operate the contest for an =
>or two with one call, then QRT and operate an hour or two with the =
>call.  I gave lots of people 2 QSOs instead of one, and NO, N6IG did =
>work W6AX or vice-versa.  Also, the club I belong to gets two entries=20
>around 100K for the club competition instead of a single score around=20
>130K which I would have made with one callsign.

Does this strike you as fair play?

>Questions:  Is this legal?  Clearly, it is not disallowed in the=20
>"complete" rules, so it is legal.

>Is this ethical?  Who knows..

C'mon Jim, you know its wrong. You are taking advantage of a simple =
oversight. What you've done here is no different (in practice) from =
working a station with one call then calling him again with another =
call. If, as you say, you did this to keep from getting 'bored", thats =
fine. But IMHO, when you submit both logs, you have jumped over the =
ethical line with both feet.

>.I can't see where anyone got hurt, except=20
>where I didn't work myself.  Everyone else got two QSOs instead of just =

>one, it promoted more activity.

True it may have increased the activity in a small way, but if your club =
wins its category based on the difference in your "bonus" score, do you =
think you can take pride in the fact that you won it based on taking =
advantage of an oversight on someone elses part? How about your fellow =
club members? Have you asked them how they feel?

>If N6IG feeds a mult to W6AX, does this make them both multi-op?  I say =

>no, as the rules define "all operation being done by a single =
operator". =20
>Clearly, there was a single operator here, just using two calls.

I think you have missed the point of many of the discussions lately. If =
we expect contest organizers to write the rules so there are no =
loopholes, they will have to hire lawyers. The result will be less =
contests. It behooves us all to make every effort to keep within the =
spirit of the rules. This has been expressed several times lately by =
those much more articulate than I.

>Who else will try this next year?  Will someone try three calls?  Four? =
>What is the breakpoint for most points to be gained for a given amount =
>time spent when determining a club entry?

I think you've got to spend less time worrying about ways around the =
rules. What you propose here would just give another reason to "collect" =
calls, just like all the gluttons we saw grab what they could from the =
vanity pool.

>The last two questions are probably moot, as I fully expect the=20
>"complete" rules next near to disallow this sort of operation.  Too=20
>bad...it was quite a kick!

Well now, here we agree. I certainly hope you're right!

Very 73 de Tom, N2GQS

FAQ on WWW:               http://www.contesting.com/3830faq.html
Submissions:              3830 at contesting.com
Administrative requests:  3830-REQUEST at contesting.com
Problems:                 owner-3830 at contesting.com
Sponsored by:             Akorn Access, Inc & KM9P

More information about the 3830 mailing list