I have set a new personal record - I have started no less than five
entries into this thread, only to discard each before the first
"period". However, now I have to jump in.
Spike Lazar wrote:
> As per club competition, we are well aware, and it was
> decided prior to the contest to only submit one of the
> logs for the clubs credit. (Being multi-op, our entry is
> not eligible for the club award)
>
> If our operations denies any entry their rightful place in
> any results whatsoever we will not submit either log. I
> really don't fully understand the point you're trying to make
> and I hope you will clarify this.
Here's the situation, as I see it. W2XL (and the other members of the
Hudson Valley Contesters & DXers, myself included) are by-and-large
scrupulous rule-followers, both actual letter-of-the-law and what we
believe to be the (apparently elusive) "spirit & intent" of the rules.
As you may or may not know, we (HVCDX) have a running gun battle with
one of the west-coast contest clubs in the "Local" club category. In the
1996 ARRL 160M contest, member(s) of this California club, by their own
admission, operated outside the spirit and intent of the rules and
single-op'd from one location using their own calls AND calls belonging
to the club, in order to "artificially" (read "by artifice") raise
their club score. When HVCDX members cried "foul", their (paraphrased)
response was "Oh well, real contesters 'stretch the rules' to improve
their scores. We know it was outside the spirit & intent, and expect it
to be banned next year, but we'll see if we get away with it this
time." As it turned out, it didn't matter - HVCDX kicked their asses
anyway, and I have the Gavel three feet away to prove it. (I'd be happy
to email an e-photo to any member of the west-coast club who is
interested in seeing what it looks like...).
Understand that, because of this, the question of one-station two-call
operation causes a certain knee-jerk-like reflexive action in some
folks. I'm not saying this was the case with W2XL - I'm certain that his
concerns were carefully considered and well thought out.
> Our only motivation for operating with two calls was to put the
> fun back into this contest for us. If it were about winning or
> high rates would have not done it. No loop holes were sought,
> no envelopes were pushed.
This is indeed a different motivation that the one W2XL was (IMHO)
addressing - more fun is always better. In fact, the more I think about
it, the better I like the idea. I think it will make for more activity
and better rates and more fun for all concerned. It will, however,
necessitate a change in the way the club competition is handled. Or will
it? I don't want to get into impulse here, as the idea really has merit
for the good of the contests, and deserves consideration.
> One contest two calls is a fun contest.
I'm certain it is, and I'm glad you enjoyed yourselves...
> My only personal remarks to you, my dear W2XL, is geta life,
> heh heh.
I think you'd be interested to know that W2XL's nickname hereabouts is
"The Doctor" (shortened from "Doctor Analog" after he started computer
logging last year, albeit on a Vic-20...). Truth is FAR stranger than
fiction, ain't it, tho?????
Happy Holidays, all.
--
Greg Becker NA2N na2n@ifam.com
IFAM - Ideas For American Manufacturers
Rondout #343 F&AM - Hendrick Hudson #875 F&AM
--
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST@contesting.com
|