[CQ-Contest] SO2R REMOTE CONTESTING

[Paul J. Piercey]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com 
> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Russell Hill
> Sent: March 27, 2007 14:36
> To: Joe Subich, W4TV; 'Eric Hilding'; cq-contest at contesting.com
> Cc: nccc at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] SO2R REMOTE CONTESTING
> 
> It has been written by Joe, and others in the same vein:
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <w4tv at subich.com>
> To: "'Eric Hilding'" <dx35 at hilding.com>; <cq-contest at contesting.com>
> Cc: <nccc at contesting.com>
> Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 10:06 PM
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] SO2R REMOTE CONTESTING
> 
> 
> > My personal prejudices are that the operator should also be
> > within the "circle" but that may not be practical for some
> > people.  However, in any case, the operator should be within
> > the same entity (or contest multiplier).  Thus an operator
> > in the US should not be permitted to run a DX contest remotely
> > from the Caribbean or other "DX" location ... an operator in
> > Florida should not do Sweepstakes remotely from VY1 ... even
> > an operator in Ohio should not contest remotely from WV.
> >
> > Still, those "political" issues are separate from the technology
> > questions.
> >
> > 73,
> >
> >   ... Joe, W4TV
> 
> 
> It occurs to me that requiring the remote operator to be in the same 
> multiplier entity might have unexpected ramifications.  Would 
> this mean that 
> in a VHF/UHF conttest the remote op would have to be in the same grid 
> square?  If counties are the multiplier does he have to be in 
> the same 
> county?  For county hunters, would a contact be invalid if 
> the remote op 
> were in the next county?  What about the case where a grid 
> boundary cuts 
> through a county-- the usual case, in other words?  Would the 
> remote station 
> be forced to be built within the portion of the resident 
> county which is 
> also within the same grid so as to cover all possible cases?  
> How about 
> IOTA?  Has to be on the same island?  (I don't know why, but 
> someone might 
> want to and figure out how to put a remote station on 
> Matagorda Island off 
> the Texas coast.)
> 

Yes, you have it right. The operator SHOULD be in the same entity as he is
representing in whatever contest his in. For practical purposes, if this is
not the case for reasons of necessity, then some leeway can be given. If it
is not the case out of desire, then it shouldn't be valid.


> I am not a VHF/UHFer, nor am I contemplating a near future 
> remote station. 
> But as I read the posts, it seems to me that from the 
> perspective of being 
> an operator who works Aruba as DX or in a contest that I do 
> not care where 
> the operator of that station is actually sitting, I worked 
> Aruba if that is 
> legitimately where the station is located.  I wonder if a 
> friend phoned to 
> tell me I could contact Aruba, might I expect him to tell me:
>     1.  "Aruba is on the air"
>     2.  "A station in Aruba is on the air"
> or 3.  "An operator in Aruba is on the air"?
> 

It should be all three. Again, it comes down to what is considered "the
station".


> If a Mars Lander sends back pictures under remote control 
> from Earth, are 
> the pictures less validly from Mars because there was no 
> human present?
> 

If someone on Earth is remotely controlling the Mars Landers in a contest,
then it should not be valid. If it is under Martian control, then the
operator should be in the same quadrant.

> I don't know the answers, but these seem to me to be valid 
> questions before 
> a hasty precedent either way is set.
> 
> 73 to all,
> Rusty, na5tr


73 -- Paul VO1HE