[CQ-Contest] arrl dx ssb spotting report

David Kopacz david.kopacz at aspwebhosting.com
Fri Mar 13 10:51:50 PDT 2009


"If you do not understand the rules, do not play the game. Anything else
is just BS."

First, the way I read...

 ARRL General Rule 3.14 [1]
"3.14. In contests where spotting nets are permissible, spotting your
own station or requesting another station to spot you is not permitted."

...is that it is not permitted period not that the station is
recategorized to the assisted category as was previously suggested.

This all sounds good on paper, but think about it a bit.

6Y1V amassed over 10,000 QSO's in each of the past two years ARRL
contests.

How many of those stations do you think turned in a log? I am not
certain where to find the statistics (I am sure someone here does), but
I bet less than half.

So you say, if you don't play by the rules, don't play the game at all.
Many of these hams calling us are simply looking just to make a QSO,
work a DX station, work a new country, break a pileup or are simply
having fun with their favorite hobby on a weekend that would otherwise
have mostly inactive bands.

Quite frankly, I welcome each and every one of these amateurs to
participate, whether they read the rules and are following them or not.
The alternative is, a boring contest.

So, if true, most participants just want to have a bit of fun and could
care less about the rules, who are we to tell them "do not operate in
our contest unless you read and follow the rules" or even worse, try to
publicly embarrass them for breaking the rules.

One might be amazed how many times I have to provide just the exchange
format to new amateurs, who welcome my assistance and always thank me.

Sure, many participants are competing. I'll even go as far as agreeing
that a few may be deliberately cheating, but I will never agree that
"sunshine is the best disinfectant" and we should, as a group, continue
to publicly embarrass our fellow hams when we do not yet know their
intentions.

Dave's reports are not proof positive or evidence of fact, they are
merely circumstantial evidence. Ask any reasonable attorney.

Perhaps we should reevaluate the rules. Certainly we should reevaluate
the way we behave toward our fellow amateurs, on and off the air.

David ~ KY1V


More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list