[UK-CONTEST] SSB Field Day '05

[MM0BQI]

Andy
Thanks for your comments which are very interesting. Can you please expand a 
little on the section I have copied below?
If  we cannot expect entrants to comply with their legal requirements then 
how can we expect them to comply with a contest sponsors rules which are not 
binding in any way?  If that is the case then where does that leave those 
who play 100% by the rules?
Thanks
Jim,  MM0BQI

"I should also point
out that the 'rules' demand that you comply with your licence conditions. I
wonder how many Open section entrants can say they did so? I'm not being
accusational here, I'm just pointing out that there is acceptable
transgression of the rules which does make 'pushing the envelope' acceptable
in other areas. If it's possible to argue the toss about legality then it's
not blatant transgression of the rules, and I wouldn't expect to be
disqualified, and yes I'd complain about it. I would expect the HFCC to
consider modifications to the rules if they thought it shouldn't be 
allowed."



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Andy Summers" <andy.summers at ttpcom.com>
To: <uk-contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Friday, September 16, 2005 1:35 PM
Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] SSB Field Day '05


> Hi Tom,
>
> I think it's great that this has stimulated some debate on the state of 
> the
> rules in SSBFD. Keep them coming! It might make the HFCC realise the rules
> could still use a further tweak. After all, I did publicly point out the
> possibility of what I thought was possible within the new rules in 2000 
> and
> wasn't told it wasn't allowed - by anyone. As a general point, why doesn't
> the HFCC canvass regular entrants views before they get changed?
>
> I hope you don't mind my commenting on your point of view Tom, because
> that's exactly what it is - a point of view. Comments inserted...
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 18:21:32 -0000
>> From: "Tom Wylie" <tom at gm4fdm.com>
>> Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] SSB Field Day '05
>>
>> Therefore if you are running a spotting station with ANOTHER OR SECOND
>> ANTENNA then you are outwith the rules.   It doesn;t matter if you are in
>> the same field, or the next field or in the next town.   If you
>> are part of
>> the Contest station entry - you may NOT have another antenna!
>
> See now you're guilty of interpreting the rules yourself here, Tom. Where 
> do
> the 'rules' talk about not being able to do some particular activity if 
> you
> are "part of the contest station entry"? The only one I'm aware of is that
> your Club members can't go home and work you to give you some points. The
> very fact that this activity is explicitly mentioned rather than a blanket
> ban on Club members helping the entry implies that this is the only
> restriction.
>
> In any case, when are you "part of the contest station entry"? If I go 
> home
> and announce a spot to the public DXCluster and the station receives that
> spot, according to your logic the contest station now has two antennas. 
> And
> yet I think that's perfectly legal. If my home station happened to be in 
> the
> same field as the contest station that would still be legal. The bit 
> that's
> made people uncomfortable with this is the use of a private cluster, which
> has now been disallowed. We didn't operate this system in 2005 because we
> followed the new rules. But there's still nothing in the rules stopping 
> the
> use of other technologies to effect the same solution, as others on this
> reflector have alluded to. Even if that's simply someone going home with a
> paper list of needed multipliers and announcing needed mults to the public
> DXCluster. They could even keep it private by using a mobile phone.
>
>> IMHO  the second receiver bit does not cover "spotting" stations
>> per se, but
>> is simply for the operators to check propagation on another band
>> to see if
>> it is worthwhile going QSY.   Spotting is clearly intended to be
>> done via an
>> RF network to a public cluster.
>
> Well, I disagree. The technique of 'big knob man'/'little knob man' is 
> well
> known in the Restricted community of SSBFD and NFD. It's usage is not even
> restricted to mult hunting.
>
>> All this hoo hah about pushing the envelope.   The rules is the
>> rules - they
>> are produced year by year and are as clear as we can make them.   If you
>> choose to "push the envelope" dont be surprised, if at some point
>> the HFCC
>> says "enough is enough" and somebody gets disqualified.   If that happens
>> dont get on your high horse and start to moan and complain.
>
> As we seem to be demonstrating, the rules are not necessarily the rules 
> you
> thought they were! The very fact that the rules have been tweaked over the
> years demonstrates that they are not as clear as you can make them, and 
> that
> others in the past have similarly 'pushed the envelope'. I should also 
> point
> out that the 'rules' demand that you comply with your licence conditions. 
> I
> wonder how many Open section entrants can say they did so? I'm not being
> accusational here, I'm just pointing out that there is acceptable
> transgression of the rules which does make 'pushing the envelope' 
> acceptable
> in other areas. If it's possible to argue the toss about legality then 
> it's
> not blatant transgression of the rules, and I wouldn't expect to be
> disqualified, and yes I'd complain about it. I would expect the HFCC to
> consider modifications to the rules if they thought it shouldn't be 
> allowed.
>
> I would like to see a Restricted section were we talk about it being
> 'unassisted', because assistance is a general term. I would also be in
> favour of going back to the 1 Tx 2 Rx allowance - however you want to
> implement it, as GM3SEK also suggests. And I don't think we should outlaw
> the ability to be innovative and spot using the 2nd Rx. I wouldn't be in
> favour of a change to the antenna restriction because we've tried very 
> hard
> to push the envelope in this area too, but the rule is quite good at
> restricting you to just a few types of antenna.
>
> I see no reason to continue with the private DXCluster restriction in the
> Open section. It should be 'anything goes' here. Apart from the fact that
> some logging software provides the required functionality without the use 
> of
> a private DXCluster, it would also bring us into line with international
> contests, where this technique is indeed used by those who wrote the RSGB
> rules.
>
> I wonder if I'll be lynched at the HFC?
> 73,
> Andy.
>
> _______________________________________________
> UK-Contest mailing list
> UK-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest
>
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.0/103 - Release Date: 15/09/2005
>
> 



-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.0/103 - Release Date: 15/09/2005