[CQ-Contest] Re: [RTTY] Ahh yess.... the old SO2R debate!

Jerry Flanders jeflanders at comcast.net
Fri Jan 24 16:26:25 EST 2003

I think we already have started towards segregating the SO2R operator - at 
least one contest does not allow unlimited band-changing between QSOs. This 
effectively kills unlimited SO2R for conventional SOAB in that contest.

See the rules for last year's BARTG Spring RTTY 
contest  http://www.bartg.demon.co.uk/Contests/02_rules.htm : "SOAB 
entrants may only change band once in any 5 minute period".

There is a different class, "Expert", if you change more frequently (i.e, 

Jerry Flanders W4UK

At 10:09 1/24/03 -0500, tgstewart at pepco.com wrote:
>As I've pointed out many times before, the SOnR has always been perfectly
>legal in the Single Op category (as long as there is only one transmitter
>on at a time).
>Therefore, any restriction on operating flexibility like that would have
>to become a new category called Single Op Limited (SOL) or SOSR or
>whatever, which could also include other restrictions such as antennas,
>power, operating time if you like.
>Single Op records have been set for decades using the existing rules and
>making any major change like that would void the significance of any past
>performance in the class.
>My point is, if you are the one having the problem with the existing
>category, it is up to you and whoever else to create a new category for
>you rather than trying to kick the SO2R guys out of their category.  You
>can then start your own set of records for the Limited class that will
>have relevance.
>For some reason, the few people I've confronted with this distinction dont
>quite seem to "get it"!  Hi!
>73, Ty K3MM
>"Tom Moore" <wx4tm at direcway.com>
>Sent by: rtty-bounces at contesting.com
>01/24/2003 08:17 AM
>         To:     "WI8W" <wi8w at arrl.net>, <rtty at contesting.com>
>         cc:
>         Subject:        Re: [RTTY] Club Competition in 2004 RTTY Roundup
>I may be off a year or so in the following, but as I recall:
>at the 2000 dayton hamvention rtty forum, 100+ rtty contesters
>voted overwhelmingly that SO2R should be a separate contest
>during the following year, the reflectors were often crowded
>with heated discussion on this issue..
>at the 2001 dayton hamvention rtty forum, it was said up front
>that no disucssion would be allowed on the SO2R  separate
>category issue..
>at the 2002 hamvention, the rtty forum focused on how to do
>SO2R but refused to allow disucssion on the separate category
>Throughout this period, not one single contest sponsor has
>publicly or directly addressed this issue until  two members of
>the arrl hudson div finally were able to get the issue on the agenda
>for the recent arrl msc meeting.. at which, the committee apparently
>felt there was not sufficient interest on this issue to warrant
>Contest sponsors and log checkers are not looking for extra work
>and they are prone to not being willing to change anything until publicly
>forced to do so.  So as I see it, while there  appears to be a majority
>of rtty contesters who agree that SO2R should be a separate category,
>no one has stepped forward to organize an effort to present a clear and
>convinceable case to contest organizers proving their rules are grossly
>unfair to the average SO1R contest participant.  Until that happens, I
>doubt we'll ever see any change..
>Tom WX4TM
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "WI8W" <wi8w at arrl.net>
>To: <rtty at contesting.com>
>Sent: Friday, January 24, 2003 6:00 AM
>Subject: RE: [RTTY] Club Competition in 2004 RTTY Roundup
> > leave it to the ARRL to once again close the door after the horse has
> > out of the barn.  I wonder how many years they have been pondering this
> > little tidbit.  I wonder how many years before the popular SO2R will be
> > separate catagory.  They have yet another horse in that barn.  soapbox
> >
> > yep, I am a life member of the league
> >
> > 73
> >
> > Thom WI8W
> >
> >

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list