[CQ-Contest] Distributed Contesting

[Paul O'Kane]

On 05/10/2020 22:42, Stan Zawrotny wrote:

 >  We think it is appropriate for all contests to be consistent in how they
 >  level the field for their participants. Don't you think that an Oregon
 >  station working remotely out of Maine has a leg up over other west coast
 >  stations in the Worked All Europe Contests?

You'll have to live with it.  With remote operation the RF between the 
stations remains the same.  Therefore, it doesn't matter where the 
remote operator is. That's the bottom line - we all have to get used to it.

As K1ZZ said, “Now the location of the operator doesn’t matter; the 
operator could be on the far side of the Moon if he or she could figure 
out how to remotely control a station on land back on Earth from there.”

http://www.arrl.org/news/arrl-board-okays-changes-to-dxcc-program-vhf-and-above-contesting-rules

 >  I am in favor of amateurs using innovation and technology. However, 
those
 >  with an advantage, such as HP vs LP vs QRP or multi-op vs single-op, are
 >  better off in a separate category where they can compete with like
 >  capabilities.

The advantage lies in having remote capability.  If this occasionally 
seems unfair, then having a separate category for remotes could make it 
fairer.

 >  Why can't the WWROF take a leadership role in making recommendations to
 >  overhaul the category structure used by the hundreds of smaller contest
 >  sponsors (and the few larger ones)?

K5ZD, a Director of WWROF, said earlier in this thread - "I don't think 
this is something that WWROF can assist with."

73,
Paul EI5DI