[CQ-Contest] Prohibiting Interleaved CQs - killing Inovation

Barry w2up at comcast.net
Thu Mar 16 17:30:05 EDT 2017 

If every station dual CQed, there would be nobody to answer the CQs, so 
no QSOs would be made.

Barry W2UP

On 3/16/2017 09:08, W0MU Mike Fatchett wrote:
> No,
>
> You have not thought this through.
>
> What if every station attempted to do this tactic starting at the top 
> of the band and at the bottom?  The bands would quickly fill with big 
> guns from top bottom.  Is that what you want?  I don't think think 
> that is good for contesting or the hobby.
>
>
>
>
> On 3/16/2017 8:47 AM, 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list