[CQ-Contest] CQ WPX rules, it finally happened

XV4Y (Yan) xv4y at nature-mekong.com
Sat Feb 1 02:14:02 EST 2014


I agree with the new rule. It's a competition, and some are disposed to have an unsportsmanlike conduct when in the fire of the action.
The role of the organizer is to guarantee fairness between all participants, at all levels.
IDing frequently will help :
- newcomers
- QRPers (or Low Power or Simple Antennas...)
- Unassisted

That said, I don't see how some can be against this rule as for me a "complete QSO" between two stations consists of exchanges of callsigns and reports  (+ number).
One can said : "yes but he just heard my callsign, so no need to repeat it". Ok, but that's not a complete QSO.
Even more, after several QSOs, the probability of this being true is decreasing a lot.
If now one says "yes but he knows my call because he saw it on the cluster", then we're not talking about radio-contesting.
Learning a part of the QSO using "non radio" means is not assistance, it is just cheating.
I know that for some people there are no differences between "learning where on the band a station is located thanks to the cluster" or "guessing part of the QSO data thanks to the cluster", but for me it is fundamental.

Yannick DEVOS - XV4Y
http://www.qscope.org/ (Free online log analyzer)

Le 1 févr. 2014 à 00:00, cq-contest-request at contesting.com a écrit :

> It is simply unfair to accelerate one's rate at the expense of others having to wait on the frequency. Btw I'm quite sure that the non-IDing stations collect awful numbers of dupes.
> Oh, and it is up to the organizer to make a rule as well as the sanctions imposed. Did you read anything that a DQ is mandatory?
> 73, Chris DL8MBS

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list