[CQ-Contest] An attempt at a foundational understanding [was: I cansee the difference...]

[Paul J. Piercey]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com 
> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Ev Tupis
> Sent: December 12, 2006 11:04
> To: cq-contest at contesting.com
> Subject: [CQ-Contest] An attempt at a foundational 
> understanding [was: I cansee the difference...]
> 
> ----- Original Message ----
> 
> As for point 5, acting on info overheard, I think it would be 
> very difficult for anyone to ignore such info in a manner 
> such as Tree has suggested. You do have the option to 
> continue your run and ignore the info if it's told directly 
> to YOU on YOUR run frequency but if I'm in a queue for yet 
> another MDC and someone mentions that a mult I need is just 
> up the band, I'm abandoning the MDC for the new one. If that 
> makes me a bad guy, well, I guess I'm a bad guy.
> ---------------------------
> 
> Contest rules apply to everyone who wishes to be considered a 
> competitor; operating with *both* the objectives of the 
> contest in mind and expecting to be officially rewarded for doing so.
> 
> There are those that use contests to seek *other* objectives 
> (e.g. - WAS, Section Sweep, DXCC, etc) that will: (1) play 
> any way that they want to, (2) must be allowed to do so 
> without unnecessary interference -and- (2) must not be 
> allowed to submit a log that could be scored higher than 
> those that followed the rules.
> 
> So...it appears that the reality is that you're a "bad guy" 
> if: (1) the event rules say that you can't do what you did, 
> (2) you did it anyway, (3) you submit a log that 
> disadvantages the score-placement of a "good guy".  In a 
> world that lacks absolutes, this is the only possible outcome. :)

Aye, there's the rub.... IF the rules prohibit it! They do not.

Maybe I missed something in reading the rules of the various contest but
where *exactly* does it say I have to ignore information picked up in the
process of sweeping the band for contacts? The only one that even comes
close is the CQ WW WPX rules, which states that "Assisted/with Packet" is
the "... passive use (no self-spotting) of DX spotting nets or other forms
of DX alerting..." which could mean random comments but, in my opinion, does
not due to the use of "with Packet" in the category name. This passage is
not used in either of the other CQ contest rules.

Asking for help is just that and I already stipulated to that but
unsolicited commentary is also just that. Again, it boils down to your
definition of assistance in relation to the definitions of assistance that I
can find within the documentation provided by the various contest sponsors.
These only refer to spotting networks and packet, operating arrangements
with others, etc. There is nothing close enough to a referrence to the use
of commentary heard on the air to suppose that it is prohibited. In fact,
the ARRL White Paper (HF Contesting - Good Practices, Interpretations and
Suggestions) states quite the opposite. Check out point (4c) where it states
directly that "If the station is moved by another caller, you can QSY to the
new frequency, too, and give the station a call....)". If that's not saying
that information heard as open commentary on the air is fair game, then I
don't know what is.

There is a reason for that. Those things they refer to in the rules are
obviously the ONLY things that they want covered. Otherwise, they would
modify the rules to include or exclude any other forms of assistance. Until
that happens, you need to stop inferring your own definitions where they do
not exist. There is an awful lot that can be deemed "assistance" but until
written into the rules, they have absolutely no bearing on these
discussions.

I'm a little dissapointed, Ev, to be called a "bad guy", not because I broke
published rules (I didn't and wouldn't knowingly do that), but because I
don't agree with your broad definition of "assistance".

I don't even own a black hat. :)

73 -- Paul VO1HE