[CQ-Contest] New Technology Corrupts Competition

Tim Mitchell tim.k9tm at totalink.net
Fri Jan 8 16:44:41 EST 1999

Couple of things in addition...

Someone said that as a multi-single why can't I do what a single-op does ?
  a. The rules are different.
  b. It is a different class
  c. In some contests you can !!!

Take for instance SS, there is a multi rule.  Someone wrongly tried to
change SS multi this year and someone else saved the day and got the 6 band
change per hour thing thrown out!  This has been around a long-long time.  I
remember doing SS multi from WB8JBM in the late 70's early 80's and we used
the so called octopus.  I am not sure what the big problem with the octopus
is.  It electrically or mechanically keeps one honest!  To change this to
six band changes per hour would frankly ruin this contest for this category.
I am more concerned with people who operate and do not use an octopus... how
do they make sure they are legal ???

Also, someone mentioned the "True" meaning of multi-single was one radio and
many guys.  I don't necessarily agree... I think this is as bad as assuming
the "true" definition of single op is one radio (no sub rcv).  Depends on
the rules of the contest.  Also, someone else talked about a bunch of guys
getting together for a m/s to have a good time... if that is the case then
they are not concerned with winning... winning to them is having a good time
(which is fine!), so no debate.

Back on the why can't I do what a single-op can do again for a second...
I could spin this back as a single-op and say why am I limited to only one
signal at a time.  The multi-multi class can have multi signals at a time.
Rather than whine about it, I do single-op but if I felt the need to xmit
simultaneously on more than one radio I could do it... I would be
multi-multi even if it was just me.

Frankly, I am more concerned with the people who are operating multiple
radios (single-op or otherwise) who do not use an octopus.  As long as
someone runs 2 radios and uses say NA with the 2 radio switch box life is
OK.  Problem is that I hear many people who are running single-op multiple
radios and multiple computers.  When they do this, all "lock-outs" are not
working.  They tell me it is easier to do this.  I am not sure how it is
easier ?  When I inquire about what they are doing to ensure only one
transmitted signal... I usually don't get an answer.  I am not nieve enough
to think that people out there do not cheat.  I use an octopus when
appropriate or the 2 radio relay interface to stay within the spirit and the
letter of the law.  That is why some impatient people hit me with the
exchange again before I can get back to xmit to them... it usually is not
because I am that slow at copying!

As I was typing this another note came in and suggested this is more a rtty
thing.  I disagree.  I have been training myself to copy cw from 2 radios at
once.  I know others do this, much better than me... but I'm getting better
all the time.  I have even been trying to copy from 3 sources at once (yes
the rate is that slow in OH).

Another assertion made by the note was a notion of how to operate.  I do not
want to see anything that makes a run station and s&p station, etc.  I can
xmit on only one xmitr at a time.  It is my decision as an op based on my
station, my abilities, conditions and whatever else I choose how I operate.
>From this, one can ping-pong cq on two bands alternating back and forth or
s&p on both bands or some combination or whatever.

Does anyone who makes/maintains/changes the rules even read what is on this
reflector ?

Anyway, hope to cu in the NAQP CW this weekend.

73 Tim K9TM

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

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list