[CQ-Contest] M/S class rules misunderstandings

[Robert Bajuk]

Leigh & others !

I respect all the members of CQWW Committee very very much and I hope you
undestand that the goal is not to criticize the rules or even Committee. I
am sure that Bob with his crew is trying to do the best for contesting and
most popular CQWW contest, but as all we can see there is a lot of opposite
explanations of the rules ....

Hats off to CQWW Committee, I know they are all volunteers who like
contesting and our hobby very much ... and I have some experiences from
WRTC-2000 Committee

Contesting is just a hard hobby :-)

73 de Robert, S57AW

----- Original Message -----
From: Leigh S. Jones <kr6x at kr6x.com>
To: <CQ-Contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2000 1:03 AM
Subject: [CQ-Contest] M/S class rules misunderstandings


>
> Robert, S57AW wrote:
> >
> > I have only two suggestions in this case:
> >
> > 1. The rules should be clear as crystal and in no way ambiguous... only
> one
> >   explanation should be possible
> > 2. Abolish the M/S category
> >
> In this entire discussion, one very important issue has clearly been
> overlooked.  In addition to being clear and unambiguous, contest rules
> should also be enforceable.  At one time, the abuse of the multi-single
> class by the "octopus" was a big issue with contesters.  The trouble was,
> apparently, that the stations who cheated the octopus regularly and
> transmitted two signals at once could not be distinguished from those who
> obeyed the rules unless a great deal of effort was expended by the
enforcing
> bodies, i.e., the volunteers who aid the CQWW committee.  The greatest
> specter looming before the committee was the prospect of having rules that
> can only be enforced by on-the-air monitors during the contest.  Try to
find
> volunteers from the contesting community all over the world for that task!
>
> The great genius of the present set of rules governing the CQWW class of
M/S
> operation is that any practices that violate the rules can be quickly
> detected and enforced when the logs go into the log checking computer.
The
> logs do not identify clearly who called CQ and who answered.  Instead,
they
> identify the band used and the time of the contact, and this is sufficient
> information to allow the log checkers to identify rules abusers.
>
> Although the present CQWW M/S rules are out of step with the ARRL
definition
> of a M/S entry, I can confirm that the CQWW M/S class is a fun class to
> operate.  Unlike the M/M class, the M/S class requires cooperation between
> the two transmitter positions -- teamwork is required to make informed
> decisions re: band changes.  The multiplier station actually contributes
> significantly to the overall contact rate -- and this "rate" contribution
> continues at high levels for at least the first 24 hours of the contest.
>
> Perhaps the biggest drawback to the present CQWW M/S class rules has yet
to
> be mentioned.  It's very easy to make mistakes while operating this form
of
> M/S.  For instance, one may easily make a contact with a station thought
to
> be a new multiplier, only to find out (according to Murphy's law, at the
> worst possible time) that the "new" multiplier had already been contacted.
>
> The other drawback to the M/S rules is that there is very little chance of
> being completely competitive unless the station is equipped with packet
> spotting.  In many locations worldwide this is impossible.  I can see a
need
> for packet spotting network outlets on several of the HF bands in order to
> service these (often remote) areas.  This would mean that a fully
> competitive M/S in a remote area of the world would require three rather
> than two operating HF stations -- one run, one multiplier, one HF packet.
>
> I believe that we, the contesting community should stop criticizing the CQ
> Rules Committee regarding our misunderstanding of the present rule and
> recognize the great success that it really has been.
>
>
>
> --
> CQ-Contest on WWW:        http://lists.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
> Administrative requests:  cq-contest-REQUEST at contesting.com




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