multi-single... a new approach

[Peter Casier]

KR2Q wrote:
>So how about this: Change the 10 minute rule to apply to only the RUN
>station.  This would allow ONLY MULTS to be picked up anywhere, anytime,
>as they are available.  Since many m/s guys run some sort of spotting,
>you would have the ability to zip around anywhere.  Assuming state of
>the art rigs, a two transmitter m/s would be about as competitive as
>a 3, 4 or 5 rig m/s.  But the RUN station would have to stay put for
>10 minutes.  This is the ONLY way to separate m/s from m/m, if the "new"
>set of rules were implemented.

Running as m/s, of course, I do not like to be forced to be stuck on one
band where I worked a mult for 10 minutes before I can work a mult on
another band. I sure would like the mult station to zip around without
watching the clock all of the time..

*But*.. implementing this proposal would make less distinction between m/m
and m/s than what exists today:
According to the proposed rule, running m/s, I could put up 6 stations: 1
used to run, and 5 to work multipliers on the other 5 bands. As long as we
only transmit one signal at a time (debatable if this can be checked!), the
5 multiplier stations can work any multiplier, any band, any time (coming
close to a m/m setup, right?)
This would be to a great disadvantage to a "poor men's" m/s with only 2
stations. His only mult station could never work the mults as fast as one
running with 5 multstations... 
The proposal misses its two goals: it DOES make the difference between m/m
and m/s less outspoken, and makes the contrast between 2 trx and 6 trx m/s
bigger. 

There is a possible compromise: implement the new rule as proposed but limit
m/s to a two station's setup. Looking at a log, this is hard to check
though. Agreed, a lot of things can be hard to check, but there are not many
'hard to check' violations that could disadvantage the 'honest' contester (2
station's setup vs 6 stations setup) that much! And that is hard to defend
as a new rule, I think.
Concluding: leave the 10 minute rule as it is now, that is my opinion.


KR2Q wrote:
>As for WHEN the 10 minute period starts, it HAS to be based on when the
>first qso gets logged.  Listening time is not known and has no way to be
>verified.
I have no problems to start the 10 minute period from the first qso logged
on a new band, but this is not the way it is now. If this is a new rule, it
will be a bit easier for the multiplier operator to verify when he can QSY
bands. But only just a bit easier. Right now, (as explained in an earlier
mail), we take the last multiplier QSO of the previous band to see how long
we should stay on the current multiplier band... In other words, including
'listening time'. Cosmetic change I would say, but more fair. There is hard
proof of when the 10 minutes actually started.

KR2Q wrote:
>I have no way of knowing during what part of the minute you worked the guy.
>So if you work the guy at 2310, you can work the next guy (another band) at
>2320, not 2321, as mentioned before (think it was an ON).
Indeed, I mentioned that, because that is the rule, *we* use in our m/s
setup to play on the safe side. BUT I do not know what the official accepted
rule is (***Bob: help! What is accepted practice?***)

Peter - ON6TT

p_casier@ub4b.eunet.be