I would have to think that the contest sponsors are not the correct
source for "what is not ethical." Contest sponsors write the rules.
The contesting community works to define what is ethical. Of course,
there will always be some within the contesting community who say that
anything that is within the rules must be defined as ethical. Others
realize that there is a gray area within the rules that is a
battleground over ethical issues and seek to find their personal
operating style and place it into the area that is within the rules
(or perhaps not).
Contest sponsors, for their part, are limited in what they can do to
enforce ethical concerns. One of the difficulties in writing rules is
that any rule must be enforceable or someone will break it in the
effort to cheat their way to victory. Any ethical concern that is
impossible to enforce needs to be left out of the rules in order to
avoid building safe areas for cheaters. I really think the sponsors
have done a fairly good job. Before this reflector was in existance,
the contesting community did not do their job very well.
KR6X
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
KI9A says:
> This is a foolish topic--I only have a low antenna, maybe we can
talk about how unfair it is to me by having the guys with tall
antennas compete against me. (Just a joke by the way)
>
> Now here is a better example of unfair advantage: What about the guy
who belongs to a large club, & lets the members know of his upcoming
operating plans, then the club members work him--maybe on all 6 bands,
but only work him & nobody else....what about this??
I have to respectfully disagree that this is a foolish topic. Contest
ethics, due to the "honor system" that is part of the contest
landscape, may instead be the most important topic we could discuss.
These cyclical discussions appear annually and many of the same people
offer opinions.
I think it's high time that contest sponsors document what is, and
what is not ethical in spotting.
A single op soliciting help in any form, either by requesting
"cheerleading" or that his club work him only, should cause his entry
to be re-classified as multi-op.
In my opinion, as stated here previously, I see non-random
cheerleading as an issue because:
"In my mind, this situation violates several of rules of most
contests.
1) You have enlisted others to help improve your score - in effect,
you are no longer single op.
2) Now that you are multi-op or assisted, you are adding operators
outside the geographical limits for your operation.
3) Again, considering that you now are technically multi-op, you now
have violated the self-spotting rule.
You really violate all 3 as a single op, and would only violate the
last two as a
multi-op.
Random acts of kindness .i.e; spotting someone else on your own,
without
being asked to do so, whether you know them or not, is not a problem.
If someone asks you to spot them, remind them to list you as an
operator in
their multi-op."
In the latter example of planning to only work a specific station, the
DX station would be working his multi-ops' other operators. I'm
pretty certain that this is not allowed except in some VHF contests.
73,
N5NJ
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|