[CQ-Contest] The CQWW 160 "protect my turf" rule?

[Sean Waite]

If you're entirely remote operating, I don't see a problem with being
considered unassisted. This is assuming your remote station is entirely in
one spot.

If you're using a flex, you're communicating entirely over the network
anyway. What's the difference between sticking a pile of miles between your
desktop and your station?

Sean WA1TE

On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 11:53 AM Paul O'Kane <pokane at ei5di.com> wrote:

> On 29/01/2018 13:27, Gerry Hull wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > It would be much simpler to state "Remote operation is not permitted for
> > Single operator Unassisted" category.
> >
> > 1. Am I reading the rule incorrectly?
> >
> > 2.  If I am reading it correctly, WHY such a rule?
>
> Well, for SOU, the use of external networks is not permitted for
> the purpose of increasing scores.  In these circumstances, the
> use of external networks to communicate would seem to be entirely
> inappropriate.
>
> For anyone suggesting that remote operators do not communicate
> over external networks, consider how many contacts you would have
> without them.
>
> Almost all of us are photographers.  All that matters is the end
> result, regardless of the circumstances in which the photos are
> obtained.
>
> Almost all of us are communicators.  If all that matters is the
> end result (that we contact one another), then how we communicate
> is irrelevant.
>
> On the other hand, radio amateurs do it with ham-band RF. It's
> HOW we communicate with one another that validates our claim
> to be radio amateurs.  If you need an external network (the
> internet) to have contacts, you're no different to everyone
> else who cannot communicate without being on the internet.
>
> Some radio amateurs and contesters deny this.
>
> 73,
> Paul EI5DI
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>