[UK-CONTEST] Fw: SSB Field Day '05 - Correction

[MM0BQI]

Correction to my previous post, I missed out the word 'legally' !  Should 
have read

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
LEGALLY binding in any way?  If that is the case then where does that leave 
those
who play 100% by the rules?
73
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.
>>
>> 
-------------- next part --------------
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