[CQ-Contest] Prohibiting Interleaved CQs - killing Inovation

Thu Mar 16 10:47:40 EDT 2017

Thank you Ranko. 

I thought I am the only one thinking this way.

Nobody complaint because they could not find a free space in ARRL, they complaint only after listening to the audio!

73

Helmut

> 4O3A <4o3a at t-com.me> hat am 16. März 2017 um 12:21 geschrieben:
> 
> 
> Advanced SO operating is skill based. I know many contesters who are not 
> capable to run SO2R at all. They are not competitive any more.
> We are competing who has better skill. New improved SO operating 
> techniques are a necessity and I hope this will never end. It keeps our 
> sport exciting. CW monsters with lot of practice on Morse runner or RUFZ 
> are amazing to me, and better than me. They will be much better in 
> listening two synchronized pile ups and it's all about the skill. I will 
> not complain and ask contest organizers to "tie their hands" with 
> limitation in rules. I will rather spent some time practicing and trying 
> to be competitive.
> 
> 
> 73
> 
> Ranko
> 
> 
> On 3/16/2017 1:52 AM, Radio K0HB wrote:
> > I agree that SO-Split is equally hoggish if it consumes two QRG's in a
> > single band segment.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 17:45 Rudy Bakalov <r_bakalov at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> The same argument can be made for working so split. Sounds like the two
> >> use cases of using extra spectrum are treated differently. You can't pick
> >> and chose and favor one vs the other.
> >>
> >> Rudy N2WQ
> >>
> >> Sent using a tiny keyboard.  Please excuse brevity, typos, or
> >> inappropriate autocorrect.
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Mar 15, 2017, at 3:54 PM, Radio K0HB <kzerohb at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Helmut, I don't think that this resistance to interleaved-CQ is
> >>> "anti-innovation" at all, but resistance to "excess occupancy".
> >>>
> >>> By any reasonable measure, running interleaved CQs on two QRG's in the
> >> same
> >>> band consumes two operating channels on that band. In the existing period
> >>> of limited propagation, many would consider such double-occupancy of a
> >>> finite resource to be selfish, not innovative.
> >>>
> >>> Suppose for a moment, that I could "innovate" a method of interleaving 10
> >>> CQs on a single band. Would you applaud my innovation, or would you curse
> >>> my hoggery?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 11:07 Helmut Mueller <helmut at photo42.de> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi Guys.
> >>>>
> >>>> These "new" techniques are just the evolution of contest, deal with it!
> >>>>
> >>>> There are different contests out there who have different rules and
> >> smart
> >>>> people REALLY understand the rules and apply every effort that is
> >> allowed
> >>>> by the rules! This is called contesting art or INOVATION!
> >>>>
> >>>> You want to make all contests the same? Keep whining!
> >>>>
> >>>> Centurys ago someone came up with stacked antennas: I bet there were
> >>>> people moaning about this.
> >>>> Centurys ago someone came up with computer logging and keying: I bet
> >> there
> >>>> were people moaning about this.
> >>>> Centurys ago someone came up with SO2R: People were moaning about this.
> >>>> There are many more examples like this ... now we have SO2RUN or
> >>>> Interleave QSOs!
> >>>>
> >>>> I call this innovation! It is fantastic!
> >>>>
> >>>> This is from the PJ2T website:
> >>>>
> >>>> Dedicated to fun, international friendship, and advancement of the
> >>>> contesting art through superior operating technique and maximum
> >> application
> >>>> of technology
> >>>>
> >>>> Could not say it any better!
> >>>>
> >>>> 73
> >>>>
> >>>>   Helmut DF7ZS
> >>>>
> >>>> df7zs.de
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> >>>> Von: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] Im Auftrag
> >> von
> >>>> W0MU Mike Fatchett
> >>>> Gesendet: Wednesday, 15 March, 2017 04:50 AM
> >>>> An: cq-contest at contesting.com
> >>>> Betreff: Re: [CQ-Contest] Prohibiting Interleaved CQs on Two or More
> >>>> Frequencies in the Same Band
> >>>>
> >>>> If you agree that the rules need to be changed,  you need to make your
> >>>> ARRL Division Directors aware of your feelings.  I believe there is a
> >>>> meeting coming up soon and I believe that this item can be taken up at
> >> that
> >>>> time.
> >>>>
> >>>> Alternating CQ's on different bands is pretty common on RTTY.  I think
> >>>> that this practice should be allowed and monitored to make sure that
> >>>> stations are adhering to the one transmitted signal at a time for Single
> >>>> ops.
> >>>>
> >>>> I can only image the situation where we have a wall of stations at
> >>>> 14.150 going up and 14.347 going down for alternating cq's. Add in EU
> >> and
> >>>> the Caribbean and we have a big mess.
> >>>>
> >>>> W0MU
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> On 3/14/2017 5:08 PM, Dick Green WC1M wrote:
> >>>>> I strongly support Frank's proposal, but the prohibition should apply
> >> to
> >>>> Single Ops, too, as it does in CQ WW.
> >>>>> I realize that multi-op stations are more likely to be equipped to do
> >>>> alternating CQs on the same band (A and B radios with two ops on each
> >> band,
> >>>> multiple antennas per band with good isolation), but it certainly can be
> >>>> done in an SO2R station. If only one band is open enough to run, then
> >> the
> >>>> impact on the spectrum is the same.
> >>>>> Is there a compelling reason to allow Single Ops to do alternating CQs
> >>>> on the same band?
> >>>>> Actually, I think a case could be made for banning alternating CQs
> >>>> altogether. I'd regret that because I've sometimes used it as a Single
> >> Op
> >>>> to boost rate or fight boredom, but it definitely does use up more
> >>>> spectrum. If only two bands are open in a big contest, that spectrum is
> >>>> likely to be very limited. What if a rare mult running low power can't
> >> find
> >>>> a place to CQ because the alternating CQers are taking up more than
> >> their
> >>>> share of space? What about the impact on non-contesters?
> >>>>> 73. Dick WC1M
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>> From: donovanf at starpower.net [mailto:donovanf at starpower.net]
> >>>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2017 2:01 PM
> >>>>> To: CQ-Contest Reflector <cq-contest at contesting.com>
> >>>>> Subject: [CQ-Contest] Prohibiting Interleaved CQs on Two or More
> >>>>> Frequencies in the Same Band
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I recommend that alternating CQs on two or more frequencies on the same
> >>>> band be prohibited immediately in all ARRL HF contests, exactly as it is
> >>>> now prohibited in all CQ WW DX Contests and for multi-operators in the
> >> IARU
> >>>> HF Championship.
> >>>>> The reason for my recommendation is that the recent success of the
> >>>>> PJ4G team in CQing on alternate frequencies on the same band (both on
> >>>>> 20 and 15 meters) in the recent ARRL SSB DX Contest will inevitably be
> >>>>> applied -- very soon -- by other multi-operator competitors in future
> >>>>> ARRL contests. Unfortunately this will be to the very considerable
> >>>>> detriment of other HF spectrum users
> >>>>> -- both contesters and non-contesters -- because of the very limited
> >>>> available spectrum on every HF band below 28 MHz.
> >>>>> The obvious course of action is to simply apply existing IARU HF
> >>>> Championship rule 4.3.2.1 to all multi-operator categories in all ARRL
> >> HF
> >>>> contests.
> >>>>> 4.3.2.1. Alternating CQs on two or more frequencies on the same band is
> >>>> not permitted.
> >>>>> http://www.arrl.org/iaru-hf-championship
> >>>>>
> >>>>> A CAC sub-committee is currently engaged in a Rules Consolidation
> >>>> Project to consolidate “The General Rules of all ARRL Contests”
> >>>>> “The General Rules for all ARRL contests Below 30 MHz” and individual
> >>>> contest rules into a single rule set for each of the ARRL HF Contests.
> >>>>> In addition to the consolidation of the rules structure, the ARRL
> >>>> Programs and Services Committee (PSC) asked the team to develop any
> >>>> accompanying commentary they choose as to areas where the perceive that
> >> the
> >>>> rules might benefit from revision and, where appropriate, to suggest
> >>>> revised language.
> >>>>> http://www.arrl.org/files/file/About%20ARRL/Committee%20Reports/2016/J
> >>>>> uly/Doc_24_0716.pdf
> >>>>>
> >>>>> While the CAC's role is solely to respond to projects and issues
> >>>> assigned by the ARRL Programs and Services Committee; the CAC chairman
> >> can
> >>>> recommend future CAC projects and issues to the PSC.
> >>>>> 73
> >>>>> Frank
> >>>>> W3LPL
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> 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
> >>>>
> >>> --
> >>> 73, de Hans, K0HB
> >>> --
> >>> "Just a boy and his radio"™
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> CQ-Contest mailing list
> >>> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> >>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> >> --
> > 73, de Hans, K0HB
> > --
> > "Just a boy and his radio"™
> > _______________________________________________
> > CQ-Contest mailing list
> > CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> >
> >
> > -----
> > No virus found in this message.
> > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> > Version: 2016.0.8007 / Virus Database: 4756/14123 - Release Date: 03/16/17
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest