The other flip to the coin is the ALL ASIAN and others which encourage the use
of packet in the SOAB categories.
03. ENTRY CATEGORIES:
(1) Single Operator Single Band
a: Asian stations.................High Power, Low Power
b: Non-Asian stations.........High Power only
(2) Single Operator Multi Band
a: Japanese(JA) stations........High Power, Low Power, Junior, Silver
b: Asian stations.......................High Power, Low Power
c: Non-Asian stations...............High Power only
(3) Multi-Operator Single Transmitter(all bands only)
(4) Multi-Operator Multi Transmitter(all bands only)
Note1: Single Operator stations means that one person performs all concerned
operations during contest period. Use of PacketCluster is permitted.
Trent and Lorraine Sampson
| PO Box 1647 | Toowoomba QLD | 4350| Mobile 0408 497550
Ham Radio Call Sign : VK4TI YJ0AX*WPX*SSB*2008
-----Original Message-----
From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
[mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Ron Notarius W3WN
Sent: Friday, 21 December 2007 2:06 PM
To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] cheating with packet
Just a small observation Paul, but while I find your argument very convincing...
Well, a few weeks back as you may recall, I asked the list members for a
"reality check" to make sure I was doing the right thing by submitting my log
for a certain state QSO Party as M/S -- since I made extensive use of packet,
and since this particular contest doesn't have an SOA category.
Although I felt entering M/S was most appropriate (and continue to do so),
you'd be surprised at how many responses along the lines of "what are you,
nutz?" I got from contesters who saw nothing wrong with my entering as SO --
despite packet use.
So clearly there remains a big difference of opinion, ethics, and philosophy on
the subject!
73, ron w3wn
-----Original Message-----
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 15:08:01 -0000
From: "Paul O'Kane" <pokane@ei5di.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] cheating with packet
To: "'Untitled'" <cq-contest@contesting.com>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Naumann" <w5ov@w5ov.com>
> In shack spotting by another is multi-op. (More than one operator!)
>
> Using packet is assisted.
>
> Big difference.
Let's try a reality check here.
In-shack spotting consists of real-time acceptance of spotting assistance from
one or more other operators.
It is indeed multi-op or, more accurately, multi-single.
The use of packet consists of real-time acceptance of spotting assistance from
one or more other operators.
It is multi-op or, more accurately, multi-single.
There is no difference - apart from the non-issue of the location of the
additional operators.
"Single op assisted" is a weasel way of describing multi-single by anyone or
any organisation that prefers to ignore reality.
73,
Paul EI5DI
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.5/1191 - Release Date: 20/12/2007
2:14 PM
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.5/1191 - Release Date: 20/12/2007
2:14 PM
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|