On Wed, 10 Dec 1997, W2XL wrote:
> This is in reference to the post from W9XR about the W3GH and W9XR multi-op
> during the ARRL 160 Contest. If this was done from 1 station, I hope that the
> scores will not be submitted as other than check-logs. December QST has
> published "General Rules for All ARRL Contests" starting on page 100.
That may be well and good, but:
1) The "General Rules" are in the December QST, the 160 Meter contest
announcement isn't, it was a couple of months earlier. (I don't have a
stack of QSTs here to refer to, I don't remember which month.) I doubt
that the announcement in QST refers anyone to the upcoming December QST
for additional rules;
2) The complete rules on the ARRL web page for the 160 Meter contest make
NO mention of the "General Rules" provision (which is also on the web
page). So, it now appears that it not only ISN'T GOOD ENOUGH to just
read the announcement in QST prior to operating a contest to make sure you
are in compliance with the rules, it also ISN'T GOOD ENOUGH to read the
"1997 ARRL 160-Meter Contest Rules" (exact title pasted from the web
page) on the official ARRL web page.
I suggest that, if there are general provisions to follow in any such
contests, they be mentioned in the "official rules" as posted on the web
and/or made available to operators from the league. There are now at
least three sources of rules (QST announcement, web page, general rules)
for contests (four, if you count the e-mail robot), and they don't
necessarily seem to match one another in content or cross-references!
So, if I were the league, I would say "oops", accept the W9XR and W3GH
logs, and correct any upcoming contest rules announcements to be sure to
reference the general rules. Of course, we all graciously accept the
decisions of the Contest Committee as final in any contest in which we
enter, I am merely offering my opinions!
73, Jim N6IG
--
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST@contesting.com
|