[UK-CONTEST] The Spirit of Contesting

[Bob Henderson]

On 31 May 2011 08:37, Paul O'Kane <pokane at ei5di.com> wrote:

> Was [UK-CONTEST] cqwwwpx:
>
> On 30/05/2011 20:06, Bob Henderson wrote:
>
> > Although I haven't heard you in Cyprus at strength adequate to allow me
> > to be particularly critical,
>
> We can all enjoy a good argument, except when red
> herrings appear out of nowhere.
>

Hardly a red herring.  You asked whether folks would be happy to put up with
your key clicks.  I responded to your enquiry.


>
>
> > You are quite right in that I have not said whether I subscribe to the
> > concept of "the spirit of the contest".  I wasn't aware I had been asked
> > to do so, until now.
>
> > In short, yes I do; though I suspect not in the way you do.
>
> This answer seems to be both "Yes" AND "No".
>

Very astute of you.  I believe most questions worth answering require a
qualified response.


>
>
> > In my opinion the spirit of the contest is the gap between the rules
> > as they are written and the way they are from time to time
> > interpreted by those who matter.  They being the adjudicators.
>

It's clear enough to me.  The arbiters of spirit are the adjudicators.

>
> This definition isn't clear.  For example, do key
> clicks from an unmodified factory rig contravene
> the spirit of a contest and, if so, who decides?
> It might help if you explain how the definition
> supports your answer.
>

Clicks from an unmodified factory rig might mean any number of things,
including:

1.  The operator is blissfully ignorant of the deficiency in his factory
produced rig.
2.  The operator is aware of the problem but doesn't know how to deal with
it.
3.  The operator is aware of folks wittering about clicks but figures if the
problem was significant enough, pressure would be brought to bear upon the
manufacturer to resolve the issue.
4.  The operator is aware of concerns but is considers it's a lot of fuss
over nothing.
5.  The operator is aware of the problem, knows how to fix it but decides
not to do so, as he considers the characteristic provides advantage in
keeping other folks from getting too close.

etc etc etc

I explained earlier who decides if any of the above are without the "spirit
of the contest".  It is the contest adjudicators.  Everyone else is entitled
to hold an opinion but can do little about it.

Perhaps everyone using an unmodified FT1000MP should be disqualified?

For the record, I believe any operator who knowingly radiates signals of bad
quality is a bad operator, whether he does so within a contest or otherwise.


>
> > What I suspect you mean, is more to do with what isn't enshrined in the
> > rules but is in your own prejudice.
>
> I'm happy to confirm that your suspicions are
> unwarranted.
>

My suspicions arose having read several of your diatribes concerning what in
your opinion does and does not constitute a radio contest.


>
> > Personally, I love these individual interpretations of "the spirit of
> > the contest".  They are the equivalent of self inflicted bondage.  There
> > is no advantage quite like the one you gain from the opponent who shoots
> > himself in the foot.
>
> I have yet to offer an interpretation of "the spirit
> of the contest" other than to suggest that key clicks
> are incompatible with this concept.  The practice of
> minimising key clicks on factory rigs is not usually
> considered to be the equivalent of "self inflicted
> bondage".
>

Indeed operator attention to deficiencies in their equipment, whether
factory produced or otherwise is laudable.  Did I suggest otherwise?

>
> The General Rules for RSGB HF Contests state "Points
> may be deducted or entries disqualified or excluded
> for any breach of the rules or spirit of the contest."
>

Indeed so and who decides?  Sorry for the repetition but the contest
adjudicators do.

>
> If we have all had enough of key clicks, we might
> review the many other examples of sharp practice,
> not addressed in rules, that contravene the spirit
> of the contest.
>
>
I doubt I could cope.

73


Bob, 5B4AGN