[UK-CONTEST] SSB Field Day '05

[Jim Balls]

Hi Andy,

As you said, it was an interpretation of the rules as was, I agree the 
rules should be amended to remove any for of external assistance from 
the restricted section.

Regards,

Jim

Andy Summers wrote:

>Hi,
>
>It's a pity there seems to be a hole in the uk-contest archives. Otherwise I
>could have pointed those interested to a post I made to this reflector on
>31/10/2000. Fortunately, I kept a copy....
>
>  
>
>>Fellow contesters,
>>
>>It is with great chagrin that I read the rule changes made to Restricted
>>section of SSB Field Day, highlighted by Dave in the NFD results article.
>>What I say has as much relevance to NFD as it does SSB Field Day, but I
>>have a special interest in the latter (2nd place last year).
>>
>>I imagine that the changes are an attempt to tighten-up the rules
>>associated with the increased prevalence of transceivers with a built-in
>>2nd receiver. To my mind the changes have just muddied the waters.
>>
>>We used to be able to have one transmitter and two receivers, now we are
>>only allowed two receivers if it's all built into the same box! Surely
>>that's unfair on those of us who can't afford top-flight rigs? Our group
>>uses two transceivers, one of them in fact being an FT1000MP. We do not use
>>the FT1000MP's 2nd Rx, nor the 2nd Tx. We sign a declaration that we have
>>abided by the rules. The rule changes effectively mean we can't have the
>>2nd Rx in a different box, but why? If the intention is to inhibit
>>cross-band or half-duplex spotting (which would be the case for the
>>FT1000MP), then surely this is hardware specific? What about the homebrew
>>rig with two entirely separate Rx's in the same box?
>>
>>I'm all for tailoring the rules to increase participation and to generate
>>as level a playing field as possible. Personally, I think if you want
>>'reinforce' the difference between Open and Restricted sections, then you
>>want to allow only one Tx and one Rx in the Restricted section. I don't see
>>this as excluding FT1000MP owners. We just have to rely on peoples
>>conscience when they sign the declaration. After all, there's plenty of
>>other ways to cheat if you were so disposed.
>>
>>The implication from Dave's article is that the new rules are expected to
>>stop spotting activities in the Restricted section. However, packet access
>>has now explicitly been endorsed for either section. Again, I see this as
>>being contrary to the principles of a Restricted section, but moreover it
>>does not dissallow the possibility for a private DXCluster network feeding
>>cross- or same-band spots. This certainly isn't in the spirit of a
>>Restricted section.
>>
>>Food for thought?
>>    
>>
>
>These comments were largely pooh-poohed at the time.
>
>The rules applicable during 2003 didn't specifically exclude private
>DXClusters. So in that respect we were within the rules. Note that even the
>present rules contain ambiguity. The general rules talk only about allowing
>DXCluster access, whereas SSBFD specific rules allow "equipment and antennas
>for packet radio access above 30MHz". Prior to the changes made to the
>general rules for 2004 they too allowed generalised packet radio access.
>
>It was nearly 10 years ago that I first saw CT networked via transparant
>mode packet at M6T for log sharing. Spots were made using 'gab' because
>there was no built-in means of dealing with campus derived spots. We built
>on this concept by writing our own telnet server to reflect DX announcements
>back into CT. This meant the spots came in like normal DXCluster spots and
>enabled simple point-n-shoot. Ironically, we introduced this idea to GB5HQ
>in 2003 where it was used to good effect in 2003 and 2004, so I'm not sure
>why Dave considers it "questionable". However it did result in the changes
>you now see to the RSGB's general rules.
>
>Going back to the legitimacy of our 2003 effort, the spotting station didn't
>really need to be co-located. It could have been at one of our houses. It
>was purely for the convenience of changing operators! Nonetheless,
>sufficient antenna separation was obtained to allow in-band spotting. If we
>had located the spotting station off-site the setup would have appeared
>exactly as you'd expect for a Restricted setup.
>
>Even though the present rules (might) exclude log sharing via packet, there
>would still be nothing stopping the passing of needed mults to a spotting
>station via paper/texting/etc and he/she then announcing any mults found to
>the public DXCluster. Of course, others may or may not benefit from them
>also.
>
>It's a mine-field. My preference would be for the Restricted rules to be
>changed back to disallow the use of packet, or in fact ANY form of
>assistance. After all, I consider the Restricted section to be there to
>allow as level a playing field as possible with the simplest, lowest cost of
>all set up. Thereby encouraging all Clubs to join in.
>
>Finally, I don't believe we cheated, but we were guilty of being innovative
>within the rules. That's what you have to do to get a competitive edge.
>
>73,
>Andy
>G4KNO
>
>_______________________________________________
>UK-Contest mailing list
>UK-Contest at contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest
>--
>This email has been verified as Virus free
>Virus Protection and more available at http://www.plus.net
>
>
>  
>