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

[Yuri]

Ron,
I won’t waste my time either to fuel your “argument for the sake of argument”. 
My point was and is even simpler than yours – if some event is based on certain award, then the rules of this event should somehow be in line with this very award. 
That’s my opinion which based on my 45 years of being active Ham and a Contester. 

If – per your suggestion – the event and the award are not going to be equal, then the QSO’s made in this event shouldn’t count towards the award.

Period.

 

73, Yuri  VE3DZ

 

From: Ron Notarius W3WN [mailto:wn3vaw at verizon.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 5, 2020 12:17 PM
To: ve3dz at rigexpert.net
Cc: cq-contest at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQ 160m contest-vs-DXCC rule problem

 

Yuri,

Now you are twisting my words to try and make an unrelated point.  "Discrepancies" in context only referred to differences between the rules of one given contest or event to another.

I am not in any way condoning the hypothetical situation you site, which has nothing to do with my comments nor is anything that I even implicitly stated.

My point was and is simple.  Rules between events may not or are not going to be equal.  Nothing more.

And that is the last that I'm going to say on the subject.  

73, ron w3wn


-----Original Message-----
From: Yuri <ve3dz at rigexpert.net <mailto:ve3dz at rigexpert.net> >
To: 'Ron Notarius W3WN' <wn3vaw at verizon.net <mailto:wn3vaw at verizon.net> >
Cc: cq-contest <cq-contest at contesting.com <mailto:cq-contest at contesting.com> >
Sent: Wed, Feb 5, 2020 7:39 am
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQ 160m contest-vs-DXCC rule problem

>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

Oh, so discrepancies are allowed sometimes? When? And what kind?
If someone participates in Contest where High Power limit is 1500 km, but in order to work a new country  for DXCC award (which by coincidence appears to be a multiplier in this Contest), he increases his power to 2000 watts (which is O.K. for his license) – would that count as a discrepancy? Overlap? Or rule violation?




73, Yuri  VE3DZ



From: Ron Notarius W3WN [mailto:wn3vaw at verizon.net <mailto:wn3vaw at verizon.net> ] 
Sent: Monday, February 3, 2020 11:55 AM
To: ve3dz at rigexpert.net <mailto:ve3dz at rigexpert.net> 
Cc: cq-contest at contesting.com <mailto: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 <mailto:ve3dz at rigexpert.net>  <mailto:ve3dz at rigexpert.net <mailto:ve3dz at rigexpert.net> > >
To: 'Ron Notarius W3WN' <wn3vaw at verizon.net <mailto:wn3vaw at verizon.net>  <mailto:wn3vaw at verizon.net <mailto:wn3vaw at verizon.net> > >
Cc: 'CQ-Contest Reflector' <cq-contest at contesting.com <mailto:cq-contest at contesting.com>  <mailto:cq-contest at contesting.com <mailto: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






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