[CQ-Contest] ETHICS

[Marty Durham]

The "sticky wicket" here is that you don't necessarily 'know' that someone
is operating out of their license restrictions...unless you verify against a
current license data base. 

Sure, if you are a US ham operating in the Caribbean and are running SSB at
21.170 and a bunch of US stations call in you will know (or SHOULD) they are
out of band...but if you are that same US licensee operating in the US at
say 21.020 you don't know which US stations are extra's and which are not.
So, I don't see a brother's keeper scenario here. We are all EXPECTED to
honor our license restrictions...there is nothing that prevents a general
from tuning his radio to 21.020 and calling CQ... In bygone days the specter
of the "Friendly Candy Company" sending you a little note about your
operating practice was enough to keep folks in line. 

If you know someone is operating out of their license restrictions it never
hurts to remind them...but the ONUS is on the LICENSEE, not the person being
called. 

I was amazed at how many US stations would call in the first time I operated
PJ2T (@ 21.170 working EU)...but it happens every time. I 'remind' them they
are out-of-band and continue on my way...working EU.

...and not to make excuses for anyone...but many of today's logging programs
make it far too easy to point-and-shoot and if you do not have your band
restrictions setup, it is very easy to "grab a spot" for a station that is
out of the US band and voila...K1--- calling PJ2T, you are ................

73,

Marty
W1MD

-----Original Message-----
From: cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com
[mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Steve Sacco
Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 3:29 PM
To: cq-contest at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] ETHICS

Chad -

Please don't take this personally, but I think the attitude you express 
is part of why the world is in such trouble right now.

IMO, we all must be our brother's keepers, to some extent.  If I observe 
someone doing something against the law, but I'm not a law enforcement 
officer, it IS my job to do *something*, not look the other way.

73,
Steve
NN4X




Chad WE9V wrote:
> This brings up an interesting point.  Is it really the VE's responsibility
> to know that every answer to his CQs is within their band or license
class?
> Sure, this example is a little easier, knowing that US hams can't go below
> 14150, but what if he was on 14153 and a US general class licensee call
> him?  Should he quickly evaluate every caller to see if they are approved
to
> operate on 14153?  If you say "of course not", I ask you, what's the
> difference? In either case, the US ham is operating beyond their license
> class.  Why is it the VE's responsibility to police him if under 14150 and
> not at 14153?
>
> Chad WE9V
>   
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.557 / Virus Database: 270.11.39/2038 - Release Date: 4/2/2009
7:07 PM
 

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.557 / Virus Database: 270.11.39/2038 - Release Date: 4/2/2009
7:07 PM