[CQ-Contest] CQ 160m contest-vs-DXCC rule problem

[Edward Sawyer]

The fundamental problem is the slippery downward slope of rules in contest (allowing a remote receiver is a bad idea in my opinion - completely trashes decades of engineering and best practice in the contest) and the insanity of remote operating from the 4 corners of the continent in the US and being able to count it all for DXCC on 160M.  

The awards have become worthless really.  Between the above and also being able to count subaudible FT8 QSOs on 160M for DXCC, how is it possibly comparable to the challenges of the past?  Its not.  Did you finally achieve a life goal with those last few countries on Top Band?  Hardly, they just moved the goal posts for you.  Feel good?

Yuri's points are really wrapped up in the above.  And then the confusion really gets going when the contest log is uploaded to LOTW and just carte blanche accepted by the  DXCC desk.   Sure, both people worked each other, but try sorting out whether it should count or not.

Personally, DXing has lost most of its appeal to me because of all this nonsense.  

Ed  N1UR

-----Original Message-----
From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces+edwards=sbelectronics.com at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Ron Notarius W3WN via CQ-Contest
Sent: Monday, February 3, 2020 11:55 AM
To: ve3dz at rigexpert.net
Cc: cq-contest at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQ 160m contest-vs-DXCC rule problem

Ah, but there's the rub, Yuri.

Multipliers in SOME contests are based on DXCC entities.  But not all.  

Mults can be based on DXCC entity.  Or WAE entity.  Or CQ Zone.  Or ITU Zone.  Or Maidenhead Gridsquare. Or State/Province/Regional designation.  Or County (Parish) or similar local political designation.  Or ZIP code (or equivalent postal code).  Or given first name.  Or Brand & Model of the transmitter/transceiver in use, or at least it's date of manufacture or sale.

So while it may POSSIBLE -- although not desirable -- to have the rules in sync, it is not always so.  Even if it is possible, there are clearly many extenuating circumstances when it is not desirable.

And I'm not sure I would know what a "real" contester is.  What would an "unreal" one be?  (Never mind, I can think of a few.)

Regardless, the rules of the contest prevail for the purposes of the contest.  The rules of DXCC prevail for the purposes of the award.  And for that matter, the rules of WAE, WAZ, WPX, USA-CA, WAS, WAC, etc etc etc, prevail for the purposes of those awards as well.  There will always be some discrepancies, because the purposes are not the same.  Even if there is some overlap.

73, ron w3wn


-----Original Message-----
From: Yuri <ve3dz at rigexpert.net>
To: 'Ron Notarius W3WN' <wn3vaw at verizon.net>
Cc: 'CQ-Contest Reflector' <cq-contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Mon, Feb 3, 2020 9:02 am
Subject: RE: [CQ-Contest] CQ 160m contest-vs-DXCC rule problem

" Why should they be?" - Because multipliers in the contests like CQ WW and ARRL are based on DXCC. And a lot of people participate in these contests just to collect more  countries for this prestigious award. So, why the rules should be different? How then CQ would recognize which QSO was "right" and which was "wrong"?
Same way as how ARRL nowadays recognizes "automated" FT8 QSO's? :-)

However, "real contesters", i.e. those who participate not "just for fun" but in order to achieve better score or to win a contest - they wouldn't really care IMO.

Yuri  VE3DZ

-----Original Message-----
From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces+ve3dz=rigexpert.net at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Ron Notarius W3WN via CQ-Contest
Sent: Sunday, February 2, 2020 11:21 PM
To: 'Yuri'
Cc: 'CQ-Contest Reflector'
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQ 160m contest-vs-DXCC rule problem

Why should they be?  Where is it written that they ought to be?

That's like saying, for example, that ALL (US) State QSO Parties must use the Canadian Provinces, or the Canadian Call Districts; and US States, or ARRL Sections; as their out of state North American multipliers.  Imagine the chaos is one state contest used sections and the next state contest used states! Oh, the humanity!

(We won't even TOUCH the issue of whether the 4U UN calls should or should not count as separate multipliers, from the US State or EU country that they're located in.  Let alone why the District of Columbia is a multiplier is some contests but not others)

Seriously... yes, it means some book keeping for the award applicant to make sure that his award entries are valid, when there is a mismatch.  So what?
That's the nature of the game.  Always has been.

73, ron w3wn

-----Original Message-----
From: CQ-Contest
[mailto:cq-contest-bounces+wn3vaw=verizon.net at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Yuri
Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2020 10:56 PM
To: 'Peter Dougherty (W2IRT)'
Cc: 'CQ-Contest Reflector'
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQ 160m contest-vs-DXCC rule problem

And I'm not fine with that. They ought to be.

Yuri  VE3DZ

-----Original Message-----
From: CQ-Contest
[mailto:cq-contest-bounces+ve3dz=rigexpert.net at contesting.com] On Behalf Of rjairam at gmail.com


Contest and DXCC rules are not always in sync, and they don't have to be.

I am fine with that. All part of the game.

73
Ria, N2RJ


On Sun, 2 Feb 2020 at 20:12, <contesting at w2irt.net> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
> Something I read on the CQ site has been gnawing at me since the 160 
> CW contest last weekend. Per the rules, remote RX is allowed in 
> certain Assisted categories for contest QSOs under contest rule III.
>
> III. CATEGORIES:
> The use of one and only one remote receiver located within 100 
> kilometers of the main transmitter site is permitted
>
> While that's all fine and dandy, and I think it's quite a fair rule, 
> it absolutely goes against DXCC Rule 9C, which reads:
> 9.  Station Location and Boundary:
>
> .
> b) All transmitters and receivers comprising a station used for a 
> specific contact must be located within a 500-meter diameter circle.
>
> My reading of these two rules is pretty clear that remote-receive 
> QSOs, which ARE valid for the contest, cannot qualify as DXCC-valid
contacts.
> Enforcement is another matter, of course, but it's an issue that I 
> think needs to be looked into at some point. I'm a big proponent of 
> allowing remote receivers within a reasonable distance of the 
> transmitter location
> (100 miles is fair in my opinion), and quite frankly I wish DXCC would 
> allow remote-RX QSOs to count for awards. But as the current rule is 
> written I don't see how these Qs can count toward any of the ARRL 160m
awards.
>
> Is my interpretation wrong?
>
> ---------------------------------------------
> GO FRC!
> Peter, W2IRT
>
>
> www.facebook.com/W2IRT
>


_______________________________________________
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