[CQ-Contest] Same-Band "Dueling CQs" Now Prohibited in All ARRL Cont

[Ria Jairam]

I might be missing something but here out east every major contest is
loaded up wall to wall, especially on 40 and 20. Finding a spot to CQ can
be challenging especially if you don't do the full 48 hours. In Europe it
is even worse.

I would concede that 10m is a special case since it is such a wide band and
I wouldn't even mind dual CQ for that band. But not 40 or 20 where it is
extremely congested.

73
Ria, N2RJ

On Sat, Apr 8, 2017 at 8:38 AM Jim Neiger <n6tj at sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> i agree.  Like a few more signals on any band are suddenly going to
> overwhelm everyone?  Operators can, and will, adjust.
>
> I remember the 2002 ARRL 10 Meters contest from ZD8.   The band was
> loaded, every kc up to 29.2.  To paraphrase Neil Diamond's song:
> Beautiful Noise...................
>
> As far as I'm concerned, wall to wall signals from one end of our
> spectra to the other is music.  Especially the next five  years of solar
> doldrums, we can only dream..............
>
> Vy 73
>
> Jim Neiger  N6TJ
>
>
> On 4/7/2017 10:16 AM, Stein-Roar Brobakken wrote:
> > Hi guys
> >
> > Why not add the category SOMT single op multi transmitter? 👍
> >
> > So those having skills to run multiple vfo at once can do practice their
> skills??
> >
> > People are just different and some manage to make it!!
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > Stein-Roar Brobakken
> > LB3RE K3RAG
> > www.lb3re.com
> > post at lb3re.com
> > GSM +4748224421// +4791999421
> >
> >
> >> Den 7. apr. 2017 kl. 17.20 skrev Ron Notarius W3WN <wn3vaw at verizon.net
> >:
> >>
> >> IMHO, let's not make too much out of this decision.
> >>
> >> As explained in the newsbite that made the announcement, the practice of
> >> "dueling CQ's" was never intended to be permitted.  Only recently has
> >> technology and (to be fair) operator skill advanced to the point where
> it
> >> was possible.
> >>
> >> And now someone did it.  Correctly pointing out that within the strict
> >> letter of the contest rules in place, the practice was not actually
> >> prohibited.
> >>
> >> I know many believe "if it is not strictly forbidden, it is implicitly
> >> allowed".  On something like this, it is unfortunate that accepted
> practice
> >> had to be explicitly mentioned.  Regardless, an unintended consequence
> of
> >> not spelling out this specific instance was that a loophole was created
> and
> >> exploited.
> >>
> >> If you want to give a tip of the hat to the PJ4G folks for finding and
> >> exploiting said loophole, well, they or someone on the team did the
> work and
> >> uncovered it.
> >>
> >> The important thing is... They did not break the rules, in fact they
> >> strictly adhered to the rules, as they were written at the time.
> >>
> >> Now that it's been exposed, the loophole has been closed and the
> unintended
> >> consequence should not happen again.  And that is how it should be.
> >>
> >> And that should be the end of that.
> >>
> >> 73, ron w3wn
> >>
> >>
> >> ---
> >> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> >> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> CQ-Contest mailing list
> >> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> >> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> > _______________________________________________
> > CQ-Contest mailing list
> > CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>