[CQ-Contest] Short contest calls.

[Ron Notarius WN3VAW]

Michael,

Just because the 1x1 system & rules are being... let's not say "abused,"
let's say "bent" a little bit... doesn't make it right.  I agree completely
that the same questioning I raised about K2G could and should be equally
applied to the past assignment of many 1x1 calls.

Having said that, though, I suspect that THAT is a discussion for another
thread and probably another reflector, since it's probably outside the scope
of this reflector.

73, ron wn3vaw

"You used up all the glue ON PURPOSE!"
In Memory of Shep K2ORS (SK) and 10:15 PM on WOR 710 AM

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Keane, K1MK" <k1mk at arrl.net>
To: "Ron Notarius WN3VAW" <wn3vaw at fyi.net>
Cc: <cq-contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 01, 2002 8:25 PM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Short contest calls.


At 12:19 AM 12/1/02, Ron Notarius WN3VAW wrote:

>... if the K2G operators applied for a 1x1 with the intention of using a
>short call in the contest as their primary objective... it was also in
>violation of the spirit (if not the letter) of the FCC rules involving
>Special Calls.

It appears that way at first glance. However recall that "Coordinators have
wide latitude...", and then look back at what coordinators have actually
permitted in the past.

Publicly significant?  Well, who other than hams cared or were even aware
about operations such as K5K, K7K, K1B, etc. I guess those DXpeditions must
have been "one time, non-recurring celebrations". Their requests for 1x1
callsigns couldn't have been granted just so a DXpedition would have a
short call sign. ;-)

Given that, requesting K2G for a CQWW expedition may have been completely
in keeping with the established precedents for how the rules governing 1x1
callsigns are applied.

All of this doesn't change the fact that K2G was a poor choice for a
contest call.

73,
Mike K1MK

Michael Keane, K1MK
k1mk at arrl.net