[UK-CONTEST] New CQ WW Category

[Peter Hobbs]

Callum
I might very well ask you the same question, but with some 
justification.  I suggest you review the thread, which, along with (more 
or less interchangeably) "Remote Control", looks like its just about  
run its course, after airing a wide range of views.
73, Peter G3LET

Callum m0mcx wrote:

>>>>Nobody's asking you to enter
>>>>        
>>>>
>
>Peter, 
>
>Have you been following the thread or do you have compulsions to dribble in
>one-liners periodically - particularly to my comments?
>
>
>Callum McCormick
>http://www.m0mcx.co.uk/ 
>t: 07976 631881
>65 Glendon Way, B93 8SY
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: uk-contest-bounces at contesting.com
>[mailto:uk-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Peter Hobbs
>Sent: 14 June 2009 03:04
>To: uk-contest at contesting.com
>Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] New CQ WW Category
>
> From the preliminary anouncement, the Xtreme section is effectively a 
>separate event which happens to run  alongside CQWW.  Nobody's asking 
>you to enter.
>
>73, Peter G3LET
>
>Callum m0mcx wrote:
>
>  
>
>>>>>which shouldn't upset traditional entrants.
>>>>>       
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>Wrong :)
>>
>>Callum McCormick
>>http://www.m0mcx.co.uk/ 
>>t: 07976 631881
>>65 Glendon Way, B93 8SY
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: uk-contest-bounces at contesting.com
>>[mailto:uk-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Peter
>>Sent: 13 June 2009 03:03
>>To: UK Contest reflector
>>Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] New CQ WW Category
>>
>>Roger
>>
>>Your system just transfers you as the operator from a practical  radio 
>>location to somewhere you'd prefer to live, never mind the connecting 
>>technology, which doesn't provide any additional benefit.   No changes 
>>to the rules for the existing sections have been indicated, so you 
>>should be fireproof!
>>
>>Actually, having read again  more carefully the new rules for the Xtreme 
>>section, it doesn't look too likely to attract the sort of entrant some 
>>of us may have been thinking of, largely because the winner will be 
>>decided at the whim of the CQ adjudicators, who generally speaking know 
>>what they're about.  The need to pre-register and provide a full 
>>description of the technologies to be used should dissuade the more 
>>unscrupulous elements.  Anyway, the scoring system puts the Xtreme 
>>section squarely outside the main event (at least for 2009!), so all in 
>>all they seem to have made an interesting innovation, which shouldn't 
>>upset traditional entrants.
>>
>>On the subject of innovation, I remember working KH6IJ's entirely 
>>automated and unattended 14MHz station in 1959, which would have 
>>involved a pretty keen set-up given the available technologies.  Even a 
>>log was kept, because I have the card.  Of course, he just kept to a 
>>single channel and responded to calls - just think what could be done 
>>today using Skimmer!
>>
>>73, Peter G3LET
>>
>>Roger Parsons wrote:
>>
>> 
>>
>>    
>>
>>>I have also been biting my tongue, and have to agree with Peter on the
>>>   
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>reasons for the new category. 
>> 
>>
>>    
>>
>>>It is technically possible to set up multiple remote stations, and it can
>>>   
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>only be a matter of time before some wealthy and unscrupulous group or
>>individual sets them up on both coasts of Canada, the US or Russia. Perhaps
>>it has already happened. It would only be an extension of multi-multis
>>    
>>
>using
>  
>
>>different stations for each band. Both of these would give a huge advantage
>>- and both are obviously cheating.
>> 
>>
>>    
>>
>>>I do not however see any correlation between the above and condemning all
>>>   
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>remote operation. My remote station is 14km from home and I control it over
>>a 900MHz link - that being an amateur band in Canada. I hope that most
>>people would accept that as a legitimate amateur radio operation for
>>contesting or DXing?
>> 
>>
>>    
>>
>>>My link uses TCP/IP protocol and there is no technical reason why the
>>>   
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>station could not be controlled over a 14km wire, somebody else's radio, or
>>even the evil internet. How does that fundamentally change things?
>> 
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Personally I have no problem with remote stations operated from within the
>>>   
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>same country provided that all transmitters and receivers are at a single
>>location, and provided that the appropriate locator is used. I do have a
>>problem with multiple remote stations or with multiple receiving sites. I
>>also do not like the idea of a station being controlled from a different
>>country, although in this case my logic* defeats me...
>> 
>>
>>    
>>
>>>73 Roger
>>>VE3ZI/G3RBP
>>>
>>>*I was once unfortunately marginally involved with Classical Logic. As I
>>>   
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>imperfectly understand it, it involves normal logic modified by what the
>>ancient Gods would have done...
>> 
>>
>>    
>>
>>>* * * * * 
>>>
>>>Peter wrote:
>>>
>>>"I've been biting my tongue on this one  although of course, as yet
>>>      
>>>
>another
>  
>
>>>   
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>OF, my sympathies reside firmly with Paul and Brian.  But really, CQ have
>>been stuck between a rock and a hard place for some time now.  There have
>>been increasing complaints about "cheats" in recent years, involving
>>    
>>
>dubious
>  
>
>>use of alternative technologies.  So what did they do?  Set  up a new "no
>>holds barred" section for them.  Being a commercial organisation they need
>>to be suitably PC and so rather than calling it the Cheats section, they
>>just invented a different name for it.
>> 
>>
>>    
>>
>>>As long as "we" all recognise it for what it is, there must be benefits in
>>>   
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>that these guys now have a section all to themselves and "we" no longer
>>    
>>
>have
>  
>
>>to compete with them on a spurious level.  It would be rather nice though
>>    
>>
>if
>  
>
>>Xtreme entrants were required to provide a distinguishing element in their
>>exchange.  Then "we" could decide whether or not we actually wanted to work
>>them . . .  How about it, Roger?
>> 
>>
>>    
>>
>>>73
>>>Peter G3LET"
>>>
>>>      
>>>