[CQ-Contest] The Difference Between Rules and Ethics

[Bob Naumann - N5NJ]

Ron,

As one of the members of the "M/M V2 team" you refer to, which obviously is
V26B, I can say that it probably did make a very slight difference in our
score.  My guess is that it's very small as this sort of thing appeals to a
small percentage of the ham population and we only get a handful of requests
for them.  Your doubts are correct.  We have done this for several years and
the same few people seem to go for the certificates year after year.

However, we did not ask anyone to solicit other QSOs for us or to spot us on
packet, or to do anything aside from themselves to look for us in the
contest.  Also, we do not advertise this certificate on the air.  This is
usually communicated via DX bulletins etc. well in advance.  I would say
that it's something we don't think much about - especially during the
contest!

We have a few stations who do let us know during the contest that they are
working towards getting the 5-band, or 6-band certificates.  Comments like,
"This makes 5 bands, where are you on 20?" happen frequently, but as I'm
sure anyone would imagine, it's really a small percentage of the time.  It's
nice to hear that from others as they call in.  They're having fun, and so
are we.

Now, if we were to attempt to plan some sort of scheme whereby we rewarded
those who spotted us the most, or something to that effect, we'd be guilty
of expanding the number of operators performing functions that gain our
operation qsos.  This would in effect place operators for our operation well
outside the 500m circle (or whatever it is these days) and thereby we should
be disqualified.

The bottom line is that it's against the rules to ask people to spot you -
even before the contest.  Letting others know you will be on the air is just
that - information.

73,
N5NJ / V26O
V26B operator


----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Notarius WN3VAW" <wn3vaw at fyi.net>
To: <cq-contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 6:39 PM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] The Difference Between Rules and Ethics


> Ward,
>
> You've given me some pause, since last year, I jokingly offered a "prize"
> for anyone worked me on all 5 HF bands (I don't have 160 capability here)
> during the CQ WPX.  (And only one station, XA5T, got it... based on the
> reaction from the QSL manager, I've been convinced that it wasn't worth
> doing again).  Although done in jest, it certainly wasn't my intention to
> run afoul of the spirit, let alone letter, of the rules.
>
> Yes, it's a grey area, and had I been more cognizant of that last year, I
> probably wouldn't have made that offer.
>
> But I wonder... is saying "if you happen to work us on all bands, we'll
give
> you a certificate" something that needs to be prohibited?  I know that one
> M/M V2 team did that last year in at least one contest, for example, but
> considering the number of transmitters QRV during that M/M effort, I'd
have
> real doubts that  it gathered them THAT many extra QSO's.
>
> So offhand, I'd say that if a station offers something of little or no
real
> value, like a "worked on 6 bands" certificate, it should not be an ethical
> violation.  Let's not squeeze all the fun out of things.  Something more
> substansive, though, should be be prohibited -- in short, anything that
> gives the appearance of "buying" contacts.
>
> 73, ron wn3vaw
>
> "You are a fluke of the Universe
> You have no right to be here
> And whether you can hear it or not,
> The Universe is laughing behind your back"
> -- National Lampoon's Deteriorata
>
> From: "Silver Ward" <hwardsil1 at mindspring.com>
> To: "CQ-Contest Reflector" <cq-contest at contesting.com>
> Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 20:30:18 -0000
> Subject: [CQ-Contest] The Difference Between Rules and Ethics
>
> I think the discussion of spotting, self-spotting, and pre-contest
marketing
> efforts is a very good one to have in a public forum such as CQ-Contest.
> This is an excellent use of the medium.  Even if there is no consensus
> reached, all of us will have at least considered the question and that
> raises everyone's consciousness on the subject.
>
> No one has suggested that K9PG/ZF2MM committed an infraction during the
> contest.  (Read ARRL contest rule 3.1.4 for the specifics of what is
> prohibited.)  What we are talking about - and is certainly a legitimate
> topic - is contesting ethics of the single-operator genre.  The addition
of
> packet and Internet technology sweeps away old assumptions about what
tools
> were and were not available to an individual before and during a contest.
> Remember the old days when all we had to worry about were the infamous
> long-distance phone calls?
>
> Boiling the pre-contest issue down, it is unethical to encourage a
specific
> group to perform acts on behalf of or render assistance to a specific
> station using methods that would not also be available to other
competitors.
>
> The concern is not really about the simple act of spotting a club member,
> per se, but the support-your-buddy thing, which, must be admitted, could
> really get out of hand IF somebody really intended to push that aspect of
> it.  In organizing the WRTC we worried about that A LOT and it frequently
> happens.  In WRTC-1990 logs there were clearly "pass the microphone"
> incidents.  The potential for serious abuse is why I think this issue got
> the attention of "senior contesters".  K9PG's own log stats show that he
> didn't really get much from the marketing effort.  However, I'm sure that
> with the clever and inventive souls inhabiting the ranks of radiosport
> contesters, the techniques could be refined to confer a much greater
> advantage if there is not some kind of peer pressure today that it might
be
> a Bad Thing.
>
> There are many other activities that tread into the grey area.  Along with
> exhortations to spot early and often (sorry, couldn't resist the Chicago
> cliche...) what of special awards, certificates, promises of fancy QSLs,
and
> other things that increase the desirability of QSOs with one station and
not
> another in ways that have nothing to do with the competition?  Some are
> probably OK and others not so OK.
>
> We have to ask ourselves if that great new idea enables us to perform more
> effectively or does it deny another competitor a legitimate opportunity to
> do so?  These are hard questions.
>
> 73, Ward N0AX
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest