[CQ-Contest] Multi-op rule change in CQWW

[Steve London]

On 08/18/2011 07:52 AM, Bob Naumann wrote:
> Looking at recent contest results, we have found that "completely
> unenforceable" is not true in the case of both CQWW and the RDXC for
> multiple signals per band.
>
> Violation of the one transmitter at a time rule is enforceable and has
> resulted in numerous DQs in both of these contests.

Yes, CQWW already had such a rule.

> The point here is that such a station, that can have a two-radio on a band
> system should take the time and effort to interlock them properly to prevent
> (this is the key word: PREVENT) having two signals on a band at a time.

And since CQWW already had the rule, why should CQWW specify the method of 
compliance ?

> I see no problem with that or the rule. How the station chooses to comply is
> up to them.

No it's not up to them. It must be hardware or software. Human lockout (using 
appropriate signals between the operators) is not compliant.

> One station soliciting contacts (i.e.; CQing) per band is all that is
> allowed by rule.

The new rule only refers to "alternating CQ's". See my comment below for a valid 
example of soliciting contacts on 2 frequencies that is not "alternating CQ's".

> This is very clear to me.

Probably not, when translated into different languages.

So, if a running station gets an answer to their CQ on a frequency, can they 
launch a CQ on another frequency while the other station is transmitting ? That 
is not "alternating CQ's". In fact, it was standard operating procedure at 
WRTC-2010.

And, as a single-op, I can still use alternating CQ's on the same band ? Only 
multi's have this restriction ?

> Why would we want one station calling CQ on multiple frequencies interlocked
> or not? The CQWW does not want this type of activity, hence the rule. I
> think it's a good one.

But, if CQWW didn't want this type of activity, the rule should apply to all 
categories, not just multi's.

73,
Steve, N2IC