[CQ-Contest] [Bulk] Re: [NCCC] SS Packet DANGER, DANGER, Will Robinson!!!

Paul J. Piercey p.piercey at nl.rogers.com
Wed Nov 15 22:08:36 EST 2006


Oh, God, not this again.

Can I get a clarification....

1.	If I ask someone on the air whether or not they've heard a
particular multiplier, is that OK?

2.	If so, why would that NOT put me in a multi-op or assisted category?

3.	What if I still use radio-based packet for spotting?

Frankly, I agree that a contact should not be directly requested and
scheduled via packet regardless of the medium it uses but I fail to see how
asking your "assistant" for help in finding particular mults is any
different than shouting across the room to the op at the second rig to find
a particular mult. As far as I know, vocalization is a non-radio means.


73 -- Paul VO1HE  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com 
> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of J. 
> Edward (Ed) Muns
> Sent: November 15, 2006 20:19
> To: 'Alan Eshleman'
> Cc: nccc at contesting.com; writelog at contesting.com; 'K6VVA'; 
> cq-contest at contesting.com
> Subject: [Bulk] Re: [CQ-Contest] [NCCC] SS Packet DANGER, 
> DANGER, Will Robinson!!!
> 
> Alan, the issue is using Packet to request a QSO.  Making the 
> request on your radio is not an infraction of the rules.  
> But, the thinking is that using Packet is a non-radio means 
> of soliciting QSOs that is specifically prohibited in the 
> rules.  It seems to me that the Assisted, or Unlimited in SS, 
> category creates a fuzzy line on this topic, but the common 
> interpretation is that Packet can be used for spotting and 
> not for soliciting contacts.
> 
> 73,
> Ed - W0YK 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: nccc-bounces at contesting.com
> > [mailto:nccc-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Alan Eshleman
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 12:07 PM
> > To: K6VVA; cq-contest at contesting.com
> > Cc: nccc at contesting.com; writelog at contesting.com
> > Subject: Re: [NCCC] SS Packet DANGER, DANGER, Will Robinson!!!
> > 
> > Wow.  So if I'm working phone and I say (over the air) to no one in 
> > particular "if you work someone from NNY, send 'em on over 
> here" that 
> > puts me in the multi category?  If that's true (1) I am guilty of 
> > doing this in the past and (2) so are hundreds of others similarly 
> > guilty.
> > 
> > 73,
> > 
> > Alan/K6SRZ
> > 
> > At 10:25 11/15/2006 -0800, K6VVA wrote:
> > >SS Packet DANGER, DANGER, Will Robinson!!!
> > >
> > >With the SS Phone weekend rapidly approaching, I sincerely 
> hope this 
> > >helps someone else to NOT make the same mistake (out of 
> ignorance and
> > >misunderstanding) that I did in the 2006 SS CW event.
> > >
> > >Special TNX to wise sage Mr. Wardster, N0AX, for his 
> advice as to a 
> > >solution in this matter vs. simply requesting withdrawal of
> > my humble,
> > >non-competitive log submission.
> > >
> > >73 & Good Luck in the Contest, Om's...
> > >
> > >Rick, K6VVA
> > >
> > >P.S. I am strongly considering the NON-use of Packet during
> > my limited
> > >QRV in the SS Phone event, so any pre-fill data with a "U" category
> > >*may* be incorrect ;-(
> > >
> > >RE:
> > >===
> > >
> > > >Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 10:10:20 -0800
> > > >To: kc1j at arrl.org
> > > >From: K6VVA <dx35 at hilding.com>
> > > >Subject: RE: K6VVA ARRL 2006 SS CW Log Submission
> > > >
> > > >Hello, Tom:
> > > >
> > > >In an abundance of caution, and due to my ignorance and 
> > > >misinterpretation of packet rules for the "U" category, 
> based upon 
> > > >several Reflector discussions, it appears I need to change
> > my K6VVA
> > > >2006 SS CW Log Submission from the category of "U" to "M".
> > > >
> > > >In my operational excitement of only needing the "NL" 
> > section for a
> > > >Clean Sweep before having to QRT Sunday Morning, I 
> recall making a 
> > > >post (like others I'd seen) which I didn't even remotely
> > consider to
> > > >be "solicitation" at the time.
> > > >
> > > >Will this email suffice, or do I need to totally resubmit
> > a log with
> > > >the above correction in it?
> > > >
> > > >IMHO, there is a fuzzy thin line between "U" and "M", 
> and from one 
> > > >vantage point, I now believe there is really no
> > difference.  In fact, I think "U"
> > > >should be changed to "MU" (Multi-Unlimited), because the use of 
> > > >packet is really like having the benefit of thousands and
> > thousands of "Assistant"
> > > >operators.
> > > >
> > > >In any case, I believe a more detailed "WARNING" and
> > description of
> > > >what constitutes "Solicitation" needs to be incorporated into a 
> > > >re-write of the SS rule.
> > > >
> > > >Please advise if my requested change can be made at the
> > ARRL, or if I
> > > >need to resubmit.
> > > >
> > > >Tnx & 73...
> > > >
> > > >Rick, K6VVA
> > >
> > >
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >NCCC mailing list
> > (http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/nccc)
> > >Post to: nccc at contesting.com
> > >Manage your subscription at: 
> > >http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/options/nccc
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > NCCC mailing list  
> (http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/nccc)
> > Post to: nccc at contesting.com
> > Manage your subscription at: 
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/options/nccc
> > 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> 



More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list