CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

[CQ-Contest] Contest Rules

To: "cq-contest@contesting.com" <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Contest Rules
From: Phillip Conza <zl2tze@yahoo.com.au>
Reply-to: Phillip Conza <zl2tze@yahoo.com.au>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 15:28:06 -0700 (PDT)
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>

  
            In this day and age rules have to be 100 % as the armchair / bush 
lawyers will have a field day on any ambiguous meanings.

Many a race ( car/boat/horse ) has been lost over a rule book , contesting is 
no different  its a race,  and it now appears that " some " contesters want all 
the i's dotted  and t's crossed  and to be fair to all they possibly should be 
as we are in the 21st century.

Ambiguous rules need to be removed to stop the " I read it this way and he 
reads it that way "
clear cut rules are good for all and easy to follow, other wise it just keeps 
going round in circles and nothing gets done 

It's happening here right now . plus . Two weeks ago there was case here with 
an op who thought he was unassisted when the call sign trustee allowed him to 
use a DX station call sign .. It happens ..

The intent of the rule has to be defined with no ambiguous meaning .

Just my thoughts

73 Phillip
ZL2TZE
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • [CQ-Contest] Contest Rules, Phillip Conza <=