[CQ-Contest] Preliminary 2010 CQ WPX SSB/CW Contest Rules

[Rick Tavan N6XI]

Dave, you're right that repairing the brain-dead M/S category would be more
impactful for WW  than for WPX. However, there is no need to have different
rules for M/S in different contests. All it does is create confusion.

Back in the late Pleistocene, when I began contesting, M/S meant a group of
operators sharing a station, one operator at a time making Qs. The others
could sleep, drink beer or scan other bands with extra receivers. The op in
the chair had all the flexibility of a single op entrant, including SO2R
although that technology was pretty rare in those days. M/S was the premier
outlet for training new ops and for time-constrained ops to participate
competitively as a team.

The only reason this changed was that a few stations ran multiple
independent positions with full xmit/rcv capability limited only by a
transmit lockout so only one could transmit at a time. This was legal but it
was almost M/M. It was impossible for a single-op physical plant to compete.
It clearly defeated the intent of the M/S category.

The problem is, the fix was worse than the problem. A minimum time-in-band
or a maximum number of band changes is indeed verifiable but it warps
operating technique beyond recognition. It handicaps thousands in order to
stop a practice that was employed by a handful. We should have simply
outlawed octopi and let public exposure and scorn handle prevention. Why
this exotic station control technique was singled out for verifiable
prevention, while so many more popular ways of cheating were left untouched,
remains a mystery to me. Honor and ethics are much more respected today than
then so it's time to restore M/S, for all contests, to what it was
originally - a group of operators taking turns doing what a single operator
(assisted) can do. Yes, this includes SO2R so long as SO2R remains legal for
Single Ops.

73,

/Rick N6XI

On 11/17/09, David Pruett <k8cc at comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
> I'll admit that there might be places in the world where chasing prefix
> mults with a second transmitter might matter.  However, I've been part
> of competitive multi-singles from Michigan and it's not any different.
>
> Now CQWW would be another situation entirely.  With fewer overall mults,
> and counting new mults on each band, the 2nd radio is a significant
> benefit.