CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] CQ 160m contest-vs-DXCC rule problem

To: "'Ron Notarius W3WN'" <wn3vaw@verizon.net>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQ 160m contest-vs-DXCC rule problem
From: "Yuri" <ve3dz@rigexpert.net>
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2020 21:31:49 -0500
List-post: <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
Ron,
I won’t waste my time either to fuel your “argument for the sake of argument”. 
My point was and is even simpler than yours – if some event is based on certain 
award, then the rules of this event should somehow be in line with this very 
award. 
That’s my opinion which based on my 45 years of being active Ham and a 
Contester. 

If – per your suggestion – the event and the award are not going to be equal, 
then the QSO’s made in this event shouldn’t count towards the award.

Period.

 

73, Yuri  VE3DZ

 

From: Ron Notarius W3WN [mailto:wn3vaw@verizon.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 5, 2020 12:17 PM
To: ve3dz@rigexpert.net
Cc: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQ 160m contest-vs-DXCC rule problem

 

Yuri,

Now you are twisting my words to try and make an unrelated point.  
"Discrepancies" in context only referred to differences between the rules of 
one given contest or event to another.

I am not in any way condoning the hypothetical situation you site, which has 
nothing to do with my comments nor is anything that I even implicitly stated.

My point was and is simple.  Rules between events may not or are not going to 
be equal.  Nothing more.

And that is the last that I'm going to say on the subject.  

73, ron w3wn


-----Original Message-----
From: Yuri <ve3dz@rigexpert.net <mailto:ve3dz@rigexpert.net> >
To: 'Ron Notarius W3WN' <wn3vaw@verizon.net <mailto:wn3vaw@verizon.net> >
Cc: cq-contest <cq-contest@contesting.com <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com> >
Sent: Wed, Feb 5, 2020 7:39 am
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQ 160m contest-vs-DXCC rule problem

>Regardless, the rules of the contest prevail for the purposes of the contest.  
>The rules of DXCC prevail for the purposes of the award.  And for that matter, 
>the >rules of WAE, WAZ, WPX, USA-CA, WAS, WAC, etc etc etc, prevail for the 
>purposes of those awards as well.  There will always be some discrepancies, 
>because >the purposes are not the same.  Even if there is some overlap.

>73, ron w3wn

Oh, so discrepancies are allowed sometimes? When? And what kind?
If someone participates in Contest where High Power limit is 1500 km, but in 
order to work a new country  for DXCC award (which by coincidence appears to be 
a multiplier in this Contest), he increases his power to 2000 watts (which is 
O.K. for his license) – would that count as a discrepancy? Overlap? Or rule 
violation?




73, Yuri  VE3DZ



From: Ron Notarius W3WN [mailto:wn3vaw@verizon.net <mailto:wn3vaw@verizon.net> 
] 
Sent: Monday, February 3, 2020 11:55 AM
To: ve3dz@rigexpert.net <mailto:ve3dz@rigexpert.net> 
Cc: cq-contest@contesting.com <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com> 
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQ 160m contest-vs-DXCC rule problem



Ah, but there's the rub, Yuri.

Multipliers in SOME contests are based on DXCC entities.  But not all.  

Mults can be based on DXCC entity.  Or WAE entity.  Or CQ Zone.  Or ITU Zone.  
Or Maidenhead Gridsquare. Or State/Province/Regional designation.  Or County 
(Parish) or similar local political designation.  Or ZIP code (or equivalent 
postal code).  Or given first name.  Or Brand & Model of the 
transmitter/transceiver in use, or at least it's date of manufacture or sale.

So while it may POSSIBLE -- although not desirable -- to have the rules in 
sync, it is not always so.  Even if it is possible, there are clearly many 
extenuating circumstances when it is not desirable.

And I'm not sure I would know what a "real" contester is.  What would an 
"unreal" one be?  (Never mind, I can think of a few.)

Regardless, the rules of the contest prevail for the purposes of the contest.  
The rules of DXCC prevail for the purposes of the award.  And for that matter, 
the rules of WAE, WAZ, WPX, USA-CA, WAS, WAC, etc etc etc, prevail for the 
purposes of those awards as well.  There will always be some discrepancies, 
because the purposes are not the same.  Even if there is some overlap.

73, ron w3wn


-----Original Message-----
From: Yuri <ve3dz@rigexpert.net <mailto:ve3dz@rigexpert.net>  
<mailto:ve3dz@rigexpert.net <mailto:ve3dz@rigexpert.net> > >
To: 'Ron Notarius W3WN' <wn3vaw@verizon.net <mailto:wn3vaw@verizon.net>  
<mailto:wn3vaw@verizon.net <mailto:wn3vaw@verizon.net> > >
Cc: 'CQ-Contest Reflector' <cq-contest@contesting.com 
<mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>  <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com 
<mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com> > >


Sent: Mon, Feb 3, 2020 9:02 am
Subject: RE: [CQ-Contest] CQ 160m contest-vs-DXCC rule problem

" Why should they be?" - Because multipliers in the contests like CQ WW and 
ARRL are based on DXCC. And a lot of people participate in these contests just 
to collect more  countries for this prestigious award. So, why the rules should 
be different? How then CQ would recognize which QSO was "right" and which was 
"wrong"?
Same way as how ARRL nowadays recognizes "automated" FT8 QSO's? :-)

However, "real contesters", i.e. those who participate not "just for fun" but 
in order to achieve better score or to win a contest - they wouldn't really 
care IMO.

Yuri  VE3DZ






_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com <mailto: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
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>