[CQ-Contest] one call sign

[Tonno Vahk]

A good question. I have done only a few Single Band entries but it seems 
natural that doing 80 or 160m Single Band you would roam around on high 
bands during day to arrange low band sceds. I have never thought that it 
would be against the rules or unsportsmanlike. Never noticed anything in the 
rules about it as well.

But now rereading the CQWW rules I found: All entrants must operate within 
the limits of their chosen category when performing any activity that could 
impact their submitted score.

Is that sentence by any means impling I should not go to other bands while 
SOSB?? Beacause actually as Jim correctly pointed out even presence on the 
other bands helps my SB effort not talking about arranging sceds.

73
tonno
es5tv
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Michael Tope" <W4EF at dellroy.com>
To: <n6tj at sbcglobal.net>; <CQ-Contest at contesting.com>
Sent: 7. detsember 2004. a. 4:57
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] one call sign


> On a slightly related note, I noticed that one USA single band entry
> in the CQ WW SSB contest had an unusually high multiplier count.
> Still less than the M/M's but much higher than other single band
> entries with a similar QSO count. This got me to thinking, how did
> this guy do it without using packet (I am assuming he didn't cheat)?
> Then it occured to me that one might be able to move multipliers
> from the other bands. This would be especially easy if one had an
> SO2R capable station. Would scouring the other bands with a
> second rig and moving people as part of a single band effort be
> within the letter of the rules? If so, would this be considered within
> the spirit of the rules? Seems to me like it wouldn't be within the
> spirit of doing a single band effort. Has anyone give this any
> thought?
>
> 73 de Mike, W4EF.............................
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "James Neiger" <n6tj at sbcglobal.net>
> To: <CQ-Contest at contesting.com>
> Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 5:38 PM
> Subject: [CQ-Contest] one call sign
>
>
>> In response to a K3EST note here on 1 December re: exception to the long
>> standing rules allowing A61AJ operators to all sign this call while
>> operating on several single-bands, I submit the following:
>>
>> Mr. Cox makes the statement that "It serves no purpose to prevent an 
>> entry
>> if the integrity of the contest is upheld".  More about that later.
>>
>> Mr. Cox says that "extraordinary circumstances" are in play here, and the
>> purpose of the contest is to encourage activity.
>>
>> Fine.  But isn't that why we have at least THREE multi-operator classes 
>> in
>> which these gentlemen could participate, ergo their activity would most
>> certainly be encouraged?
>>
>> I respectfully submit that by allowing A61AJ to be signed on multiple
> bands,
>> while claiming single-operator, single-band, MOST DEFINITELY gives these
>> A61AJ operators and advantage over their single band competitors.
>>
>> For example, I'm at TO4A (which I was), and I work A61AJ on 40 meters.
> Fine.
>> I later go to 80, and I hear a station (in the QRM) and I hear something
>> that sounds something like A61???.  My natural reaction, of course, will
> be,
>> "hey I previously worked A61AJ on 40, they're almost always
> multi-something,
>> I'm going to send A61AJ, and I believe that to be it.  If they don't come
>> back and say no, it's really A61EE, I'm going to believe it A61AJ, 
>> confirm
>> that I have the call right, and proceed with high confidence that I have 
>> a
>> valid QSO."
>>
>> In other words, it has given me an a priori sense that it's probably the
>> same station, and this sense I submit would be to my, and their,
> advantage.
>>
>> Simply stated, allowing multiple single banders to use the same call is
>> against the rules, and I believe will give them an unfair advantage over
>> other single band stations in the same category.
>>
>> Perhaps this is why our Founding Fathers had the foresight to dictate the
>> one call, one category posture in the first place?
>>
>> Without any rationale stated, Mr. Cox unilaterally determined that the
>> "integrity of the contest was upheld".  To which I say: "it would not 
>> be".
>>
>> The rationale that only this call A61AJ could be made available, and
>> justifies an "extraordinary circumstance", just doesn't cut it either, in
> my
>> opinion.  This isn't the first place in the world where that applies 
>> (some
>> may recall my six CQ WW CW D44BC operations in the 80's/90's).  In many
>> countries, calls can be obtained, but only after weeks or months of
>> application, details, and waiting.  For K3EST to effectively grant this
>> privilege to A61AJ operators is just not fair.
>>
>> I believe that to truly uphold the integrity of this past contest that 
>> the
>> A61AJ logs should be combined into a multi-multi, which it certainly was.
>>
>> Vy 73
>>
>> Jim Neiger  N6TJ
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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