Yuri and others who sent me direct emails:
I agree with you entirely. The two sentences below were included in my email
to point out that 'breaking a rule' in response to someone else 'breaking a
rule' is non-ethical and probably not effective.
" ?However, doing such a thing deliberately does place you in the category
of
someone who is not operating ethically in the contest. "
"?Whether this would cause offenders to cease and desist is problematical
--- I expect not."
I suspect we should do as we do with deliberate QRM; ignore it and continue
operating or move away to a different place. As Yuri says, "?only
WRTC-style contests may be called a "real competition".
Tod, K0TO
On 9/12/13 12:59 PM, "Yuri" <ve3dz@rigexpert.net> wrote:
> Not a good suggestion in my opinion, Tod.
> Looks like protesting against breaking of one rule by breaking another rule.
>
> I was thinking about it for quite a while. I guess only WRTC-style contests
> may be called a "real competition".
> All other contests are just... for "having fun".
>
> Yuri VE3DZ
>
>>
>> I can imagine only one way to 'retaliate' or protest. [ select the word of
>> your choice] . One can generate an 'NIL' in another operator's log. Done
>> cleverly, you can even come up with a strategy that will give you a
>> multiplier, should you need it, and still create a problem for the
>> 'cheating' station.
>>
>> However, doing such a thing deliberately does place you in the category of
>> someone who is not operating ethically in the contest. I suppose if a
>> large
>> group of folks were to generate NIL's in one contest for one or a few
>> stations and then revert to completely ethical operating for all future
>> contests there might be an opportunity to make a point that would be
>> visible
>> to serious operators world wide.
>>
>> The casual operator probably would be oblivious to what had happened.
>> Whether this would cause offenders to cease and desist is
>> problematical ---
>> I expect not. If you truly believe that "the rules do not apply to me"
>> then
>> there will be little reason to change behavior.
>>
>> This issue was present in amateur radio contesting before I edited the
>> first
>> issue of the NCJ in 1972. I suspect that 40 years from now it there will
>> still be such scofflaws among our contesting brethren.
>>
>> Tod, K0TO
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|