CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

[CQ-Contest] one call sign

To: <CQ-Contest@contesting.com>
Subject: [CQ-Contest] one call sign
From: "James Neiger" <n6tj@sbcglobal.net>
Reply-to: n6tj@sbcglobal.net
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 17:38:50 -0800
List-post: <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
In response to a K3EST note here on 1 December re: exception to the long
standing rules allowing A61AJ operators to all sign this call while
operating on several single-bands, I submit the following:

Mr. Cox makes the statement that "It serves no purpose to prevent an entry
if the integrity of the contest is upheld".  More about that later.

Mr. Cox says that "extraordinary circumstances" are in play here, and the
purpose of the contest is to encourage activity.

Fine.  But isn't that why we have at least THREE multi-operator classes in
which these gentlemen could participate, ergo their activity would most
certainly be encouraged?

I respectfully submit that by allowing A61AJ to be signed on multiple bands,
while claiming single-operator, single-band, MOST DEFINITELY gives these
A61AJ operators and advantage over their single band competitors.

For example, I'm at TO4A (which I was), and I work A61AJ on 40 meters. Fine.
I later go to 80, and I hear a station (in the QRM) and I hear something
that sounds something like A61???.  My natural reaction, of course, will be,
"hey I previously worked A61AJ on 40, they're almost always multi-something,
I'm going to send A61AJ, and I believe that to be it.  If they don't come
back and say no, it's really A61EE, I'm going to believe it A61AJ, confirm
that I have the call right, and proceed with high confidence that I have a
valid QSO."

In other words, it has given me an a priori sense that it's probably the
same station, and this sense I submit would be to my, and their, advantage.

Simply stated, allowing multiple single banders to use the same call is
against the rules, and I believe will give them an unfair advantage over
other single band stations in the same category.

Perhaps this is why our Founding Fathers had the foresight to dictate the
one call, one category posture in the first place?

Without any rationale stated, Mr. Cox unilaterally determined that the
"integrity of the contest was upheld".  To which I say: "it would not be".

The rationale that only this call A61AJ could be made available, and
justifies an "extraordinary circumstance", just doesn't cut it either, in my
opinion.  This isn't the first place in the world where that applies (some
may recall my six CQ WW CW D44BC operations in the 80's/90's).  In many
countries, calls can be obtained, but only after weeks or months of
application, details, and waiting.  For K3EST to effectively grant this
privilege to A61AJ operators is just not fair.

I believe that to truly uphold the integrity of this past contest that the
A61AJ logs should be combined into a multi-multi, which it certainly was.

Vy 73

Jim Neiger  N6TJ




_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>