[CQ-Contest] Prohibiting Interleaved CQs - killing Inovation

Thu Mar 16 11:17:39 EDT 2017

 Not entirely correct, IMHO.

It's not a question of listening or not listening to the audio.  It's a question of what is and is not considered 'fair game' in a contest.  Just because many were not aware of this situation doesn't mean that the implicitly agreed with it, nor does it mean that it is necessarily 'fair.'

There is a perception among a good many contesters that "dueling CQ's" or equivalent, that is to say, transmitting on one frequency while listening to another on the same band, is not considered to be 'fair.'  And this goes back many years, as far back as the mechanical Octopus setups that some multi-transmitter stations once used in the pre-digital age.

There is a perception among some contesters that the rules are to be strictly interpreted, and what is not expressly prohibited in a strict interpretation is therefore permissible.  (Which is why what should be simple rules sometimes morph into complicated morasses, but that's another story).

There is a perception among some that anything that CAN be done, MUST be done.  Whether or not it is wise to actually do so, even if technically permitted, notwithstanding.

And there is a perception among many contesters that certain rules pertain to all contests, when in reality they only pertain to a few.  And vice versa.

So the real question is... just because a competitive station (SO2R, M/S, M/2, M/M) that has the technical capability to operate on two (or more) frequencies on the same band at the same time, granted with the limitation that said station is only transmitting on a single transmitter at a given moment (to stay strictly within the letter of the rules)... should it?

And if it is the intention of the contest sponsors or organizers that they do not wish this operating method to be used in their contest, then what needs to be done to the event rules to make this clear?

73, ron w3wn 

On 03/16/17, Helmut Mueller wrote:

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
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest