[CQ-Contest] Merging Social Media and Contesting

[Stephen Bloom]

I think the bottom line is, there was no bad intent, but the rules, which can be interpreted in various ways regarding remote should be clarified.  No audio or visual stream of operations should be allowed in a contest, except for multi op teams who are at least in part remote, and then only to each other.  It's a bad idea period.  Ray shouldn't be DQed, but he should have pulled the plug on the stream, the second he was aware of the spotting.  There should be an agreement to change it to a check log.  Besides, do we really need Twitch for contesters?73Steve KL7SB
-------- Original message --------From: Sterling Mann <kawfey at gmail.com> Date: 3/12/20  7:38 PM  (GMT-08:00) To: donovanf at starpower.net Cc: "CQ-Contest at contesting.com" <cq-contest at contesting.com> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Merging Social Media and Contesting Frank, we have differing opinions regarding the judgement of the W2RE'sactions and the intent of the rules.His CQs, exchanges, and solicitations were not relayed over theinternet. *"Contactsmade through repeaters, digipeaters, or gateways are not permitted. Thisapplies to all forms of active relays or repeaters"* is saying the contactmay only take place without relays. No contact was made using the stream.To do this, an S&P who could not hear W2RE but W2RE could hear the S&Perwould have to entirely use the audio of the stream to complete the contact.However, livestreams are always on a fairly significant delay (typically30s), so one could not make a real-time QSO with him solely by listening tohim on the stream. https://youtu.be/aydTZN4nLfU?t=20005 is one case wheresomeone said "love the youtube channel" but I guarantee the S&Per made theQSO entirely via amateur radio due to this delay.Nor was he soliciting contacts via the stream. Solicitation implies that hewas asking people to work him on a non-amateur means of communication, butI don't think that's the case here. To solicit a QSO, he would need to givea potential contact his frequency. Arguably he could have also said "findme on 20m" or "find my spots" and that may have been a violation. He saysthat he's at the bottom of the band here: https://youtu.be/aydTZN4nLfU?t=97and to look on the dx cluster here: https://youtu.be/aydTZN4nLfU?t=623. Ido think saying that is not compliant to the rules, but I don't thinkposting a stream of his operation is automatically solicitation.The video does not show his frequency, which would have been a clearviolation, but others independently posted his run freq to the chat afterfinding it on the cluster. Ideally, that should have been deleted, but Idon't think W2RE is responsible for what other people are saying.Personally, I'm in agreement with others that say an unlimited categorywould be good here. Ideally the self-spotting rule would not apply tounlimited, keeping us from having to think too hard about whatself-spotting is.Additionally, Ray seems to be aware of the chat in the beginning but lateron, as they discuss what frequency he's on, he seems to ignore it. It mayhave been put out of his sight, in which case he's not responsible forviewers conspiring together to work him. At least I don't think he is. Butthis is where the problem has it's greatest merit - does the stream givehim an advantage over other operators? Averaged out over time, I don'treally think it does.The only rule I could see him potentially violating is giving stations thatwork him a non-amateur means of verifying the information in their QSO. AnS&Per might botch the QSO, be watching the stream, wait 30s after the QSO,and hear Ray "repeat" it on stream. But is that on Ray, or on the other op?I would argue the S&Per is breaking the rules because that person is usinga non-amateur means to complete the QSO, exactly like if the S&Per textedW2RE what his exchange is. It's analogous to a gun manufacturer beingliable for deaths caused by their guns. The catch is in the texting case,W2RE is an accomplice to the S&Pers violation. On a stream, is W2RE anaccomplice in the same way? You would have to say that W2REs purpose forthe stream is to give his S&Pers a second chance, but the evidence doesn'tlead me to that conclusion.Jeez. I spend way too much time writing emails on this list. I'm sorry towrite a brick of text but this is CQ-contest, and it's the one place on theworld wide web full of other contesters where discussions like these can behashed out into action.-Sterling N0SSCOn Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 8:36 PM <donovanf at starpower.net> wrote:> T his video of the RHR Live Stream reveals violations of four General> Rules for all ARRL Contests:>>> www.youtube.com/watch?v=aydTZN4nLfU>>>>> What are the specific violations shown in the video?>>>>     1. CQs (i.e., soliciting a contact) were relayed via the internet>     2. Exchanges (a necessary half of every QSO) were relayed via the> internet>     3. end-of-QSO solications (i.e., QRZs) were relayed via the internet>     4. His 14155 frequency was shown multiple times during the live stream>     5.>>> What specific General Rules for all ARRL Contests were violated?>>>>> 3.9. Contacts made through repeaters, digipeaters, or gateways are not> permitted>>>     1. 3.9.1. This applies to all forms of active relays or repeaters.>     2. 3.10. The use of non-Amateur Radio means of communication (for> example, Internet or telephone) to solicit a contact (or contacts) during> the contest period is not permitted.>     3. 3.14. In contests where spotting nets are permissible, spotting> your own station or requesting another station to spot you is not> permitted.>>> 73> Frank> W3LPL>>>>>>     1.>     2.>     3.>     4.>     5.>     6.>         1.>     7.>     8.>     9.> _______________________________________________> CQ-Contest mailing list> CQ-Contest at contesting.com> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest>_______________________________________________CQ-Contest mailing listCQ-Contest at contesting.comhttp://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest