Doing a rather severe edit on K9PG's original post...
> Even though there were no rules broken, this has become an unfortunate
situation that seems to have gotten > a bit out of hand, and for that, I
apologize.
>
> After talking to a few "serious contesters," I have decided to submit my
log in the category that I operated
> in...single op, high power, and will do so with a clear conscience.
There are a lot of seriously gray areas involved with the addition of packet
and Internet technology to the traditional concept of "single op".
Occasionally, enthusiastic use of these technologies strays into areas that
may overly compromise the concept of "single". There have been vigorous
discussions on similar topics - such as the use of "support teams" and host
assistance. In this case, the topic is pre- and during-contest "packet
marketing".
As far as I know we are still operating under the "all is permitted that is
not forbidden" assumption, so there would be no reason for Paul to withdraw
his log or change its entry category. There have been many situations in
the past where someone discovers a new and clever trick that pushes the
envelope into an area that provokes comment. Maybe there is a rule change,
maybe just a gentleman's agreement that the trick isn't "sporting", or just
maybe everybody starts doing it. Use of second radios is now accepted and
encouraged, but for many years it was quite unusual and often frowned upon.
Speaking for myself only - I would not hesitate to advertise my expedition,
nor to let all my club members know that I hoped to put them in the log on
all six bands. That's part of the good fellowship and enjoyment of
contesting. We don't do this in a vacumn, you know. In general, my
personal rule is that I try to compete on the basis of whether the wet stuff
between my ears works better than the other guy's wet stuff. Yet I augment
it with the best technology and location I can afford. It's often a
difficult call that we all have to make on our own best judgement.
If, for example, the contest adminstrators feel that packet spotting is
affecting the outcome in undesirable ways or is being used in a manner that
is not equally available to all competitors, then they need to write
unambiguous rules that create the appropriate constraints. In the absence
of formal constraints, then the only means of examining the issues is public
discussions in forums such as this.
Without discussion, how would the sport grow? I don't want contesting to
deteriorate into the state of some other sports where nothing new is
possible. We're very technology-driven and new gadgetry often introduces
completely new modes of operating that require some discussion as to their
appropriateness.
Personally, I appreciate K9PG's difficult post.
73, Ward N0AX
|