[CQ-Contest] Ethics of operating overtime in SS

Aldewey at aol.com Aldewey at aol.com
Tue Oct 29 20:09:23 EDT 2013

Actually, it often is. 
Having served on the CAC for a number of years, as well as with NCJ, it is  
not always as easy to articulate the rules as you might think.  Many of the 
 rules can have multiple interpretations and situations one never even 
considers  when the rules are written.  If you try and explain every possible  
situation that could ever occur in the contest rules, you are going to end up 
 with a very long , complex document that is very difficult for the casual 
reader  to get through even if they were motivated to do so.  A recent 
example that  the CAC  discussed had to do with the RTTY Round-Up off time rule.  
 The existing rule, as currently written, is very hard to understand.  Yet 
,  when we tried to add more verbiage to explain it further, it got even 
more  complicated.  I think you need to reach some compromise between 
conciseness  and thoroughness in contest rules.
My feeling has always been that the best approach is to state the basic  
rules as clearly and concisely as possible and then include an FAQ document 
for  all the special cases and interpretations.  For CQWW last weekend, I had 
a  couple questions on Club Competition that were not addressed in the 
rules. But  when I went to the FAQ, it answered my questions very well.  I know 
that  the League has an FAQ document for Field Day that answers lots of 
questions and  keeps the basic rules reasonably easy to understand.  I think if 
the league  did this for all contests, it would help with issues that are 
continually  discussed on this and other reflectors before and after each major 
 contest.  It will also reduce the wear and tear on the individuals who  
manage these contests.
Al, K0AD
In a message dated 10/29/2013 10:31:14 A.M. Central Daylight Time,  
w0mu at w0mu.com writes:

Is it  that hard to say 
in the rules what is really meant?

Mike  W0MU

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list