[CQ-Contest] multiple calls/one station

[Nate Bargmann]

> I know FEEDING CALLS has been a problem in the past for the ARRL.  I clearly
> remember getting a phone call from Mark Wilson, AA2Z (now ?1RO), asking me if
> I ever operated on 6 meters.  And the answer was (and still is), NO, I have
> NEVER been on 6 meters.  Apparently, some local (NNJ) had gone through the
> local 2 meter club roster and had done their thing.  That is, of course, out
> and out cheating.  I am confident that THAT is the INTENT of the rule.  Maybe
> some rewording is in order.
> 
> de Doug KR2Q

Again, I am demonstrating my sheltered lifestyle with regard to 
contesting, but it seems to me that an individual operating a station 
and identifying it with someone else's call without their knowledge, 
consent, or presence would violate Part 97 in the U.S.A. (and 
probably most other conutry's regulations).  I would call such 
operation bootlegging, plain and simple.  Since on most entry sheets 
the disclaimer that is signed by the entrant (and probably considered 
by the contest sponsor to be agreed to when an entry is submitted 
electronically) includes something to the effect that, "...I certify 
that I have operated my station within the limits of my license and 
have observed the Amateur Service rules in my country and the rules 
of the contest..."  So, I am curious why ARRL has this rule.

Second, it seems to me that the log checkers were following up after 
finding a rather large percentage of "uniques" in the log under 
question.  Any station that submits a top scoring log (criteria 
defined by the sponsor) is said to be subject to this kind of 
scrutiny.  So, it would seem that any beneficiary of "call feeding" 
might find the small score boost not worth any penalty assessed later 
on.  However, in this situation there is more than one guilty party.  
Of course the contest op is guilty if he logs the "QSO" knowingly.  
The op feeding the calls is also guilty as I outline above.  The 
contest sponsor can only punish the contest op by banning his 
participation in some future event.  Yet, the sponsor can't do 
anything to the "call feeder" should they ever find out who it was.  
So, I am curious why ARRL has this rule.

So far "call feeding" has been the only reason given for the 
existance of this rule.  Are there other reasons?  From where I sit I 
really can't see a competitive advantage to a single station being 
used under more than one call in a contest.  Contests are won on the 
basis of who worked the most stations and anything that removes 
valuable time from the pursuit of this goal will harm the chances of 
winning or doing one's best.  A station operated under more than one 
call only enhance the score of those that manage to work it again 
under the new call.  Perhaps this is the reason for this rule?

Overall, for the reasons cited in this thread of introducing new 
blood to contesting and to have private competitions from the same 
physical location among operators, I agree this rule should be 
reviewed.  Unless compelling evidence is given for its retention, 
perhaps it should be rewritten or removed.

73, de Nate >>


     Packet   | KA0RNY @ WF0A.#SCKS.KS.USA.NOAM        | "If wires can be
     Internet | ka0rny at midusa.net                      | connected in two
     Location | Valley Center, KS USA EM17hs           | different ways,
             View yet another web page at:             | the first way
       http://homepage.netspaceonline.com/~ka0rny/     | blows the fuse!"


--
CQ-Contest on WWW:        http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests:  cq-contest-REQUEST at contesting.com