[CQ-Contest] Increasing the Number of Workable Stations

jimk8mr at aol.com jimk8mr at aol.com
Tue Oct 27 22:12:26 EDT 2020

This point brings up again another ARRL contest rule that has long outlived its usefulness:

General Rules

   - 3.5.A transmitter used to contact one or more stations may not be subsequently used under any other call during the contest period, except for family stations where more than one call has been issued, and then only if the second call sign is used by a different operator. (The intent of this rule is to accommodate family members who must share a rig and to prohibit manufactured or artificial contacts.)

As best I can remember this rule goes back to the days of paper logs when serious log checking for "manufactured or artificial" contacts was not practical. But why not let there be more workable stations, even if some of them are the same person using the same transmitter? For years I've done CW SS by visiting several other stations for six hours or so.  The Sunday rates keep getting better, and I've never heard of anybody who thought a contact with me from those stations was "artificial". But why make it necessary to spend time driving to other stations, and to make other people fit with my schedule and vice versa, etc.?

CQ does not have such a rule for their contests. I've had great time in their 160 meter contests firing up on the second night with a new callsign. Great rates, and most of the people worked are people I've worked the first night, who would have not had that extra QSO under the ARRL rule.

If there are to be "artificial" contacts, it will much more likely involve somebody who is not seriously in the contest, or somebody who is not going to submit a log for those QSOs. But if necessary there could be some limits on second callsign usage, such as minimum off times before returning to use a previously used callsign. 

I urge the Board of Directors to ask the Contest Advisory Committee to look into this rule change.

73  -  Jim   K8MR

And I hope to get on for CW SS with two or more callsigns, with different radios, from different locations in WCF.

-----Original Message-----
From: Barry W2UP <w2up.co at gmail.com>
Sent: Tue, Oct 27, 2020 7:42 pm
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] ARRL DX Contest Multioperator Station Guidelines

Jim makes good points.  By aggregating a number of single ops into a new
multi category under one callsign, you're cutting down the number of
workable stations.  It just doesn't make sense.  Why create something for
which there was no demand?

Barry W2UP

On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 5:23 PM rjairam at gmail.com <rjairam at gmail.com> wrote:

> Mind you - this is not together with the conventional M/M category. This is
> separate. I think this is where the confusion lies.
> 73
> Ria
> N2RJ
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 6:05 PM Jim Brown <k9yc at audiosystemsgroup.com>
> wrote:
> > On 10/25/2020 7:23 PM, rjairam at gmail.com wrote:
> > > By allowing them to stay at home and use the same call, but follow ALL
> > > (every single one) of the existing M/M rules, they can still play.
> >
> > This defies logic! Operators who have stations can "play" at home using
> > their own calls, which gives other contesters more stations to work. I
> > see that as a big plus! What am I missing? It's not the CALL of the
> > contest station, it's the station, including it's antenna system, and
> > its operators, that make it competitive.
> >
> > I've operated at N6RO as part of M/M teams and as part of dozens of FD
> > and county expedition teams for CQP and 7QP. The fun of doing so is the
> > in-person camaraderie, learning from others, and, in the case of the
> > expeditions, setting up and tearing down the stations, NONE of which
> > happens under this rule change.
> >
> > The N6RO team has spent the last six months reconfigured itself to
> > operate M/M remotely. More of the true spirit of ham radio,
> > station-building and learning new stuff to meet new challenges. FAR
> > better than driving several hundred miles to box-top operate a station
> > that someone else built!
> >
> > 73, Jim K9YC

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list