I guess I wasn't aware that running more and picking
the best 4 bands was illegal or unethical, altough I
haven't done multiop VHF contesting since they
developed the limited multiop category.
Does the same hold true for HF? Is it illegal,
unethical, or not in the intent of the rules to
operate on all HF bands for say the CQWW contest, and
then just enter as a single band entry, picking the
band you did best on? I have done that before, but
didn't realize that I might be violating the rules.
73s John AA5JG
--- aa4zz@aol.com wrote:
>
> ?I know of no time (at least here in the SE) where a
> 1296 score would ever approach the score of? well
> equipped 222 station. I also think a pass from 1296
> to a lower band very unlikely and certainly not
> common enough to significantly effect scores.
> ?? For us at AA4ZZ 1296 is run just to help?others
> and frankly if it affects our score, it is to lower
> it, because of the lost time and focus from the
> other bands.
>
> 73 Paul AA4ZZ
>
>
>
>
> Allowing a "limited multi" station with more than
> four bands to operate
> the contest on all of their available bands opens
> the door for "cherry
> picking" the best four bands after the contest is
> over for their limited
> multi-op entry. For example, 50/144/432 are usually
> the best three, but
> operating both 222 and 1.2G during the contest and
> picking the best band
> and the "fourth" is unfair, and is in no way within
> the intent of the
> rules. In addition, to be fair such an entry should
> not be allowed to
> pass any station "from" any band which they will not
> be claiming in
> their "official" score.
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Pruett <>
> To: kr7o@vhfdx.com
> Cc: kx9x@arrl.org; vhfcontesting@contesting.com
> Sent: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 12:49 pm
> Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] New VHF+ contest rules
>
>
>
> All:
>
> While I acknowledge the point Robert is trying to
> make, there is a dark
> "other" side to this which I think gets ignored.
>
> Allowing a "limited multi" station with more than
> four bands to operate
> the contest on all of their available bands opens
> the door for "cherry
> picking" the best four bands after the contest is
> over for their limited
> multi-op entry. For example, 50/144/432 are usually
> the best three, but
> operating both 222 and 1.2G during the contest and
> picking the best band
> and the "fourth" is unfair, and is in no way within
> the intent of the
> rules. In addition, to be fair such an entry should
> not be allowed to
> pass any station "from" any band which they will not
> be claiming in
> their "official" score.
>
> I sense Robert is trying to prevent the contest's
> rules from
> inadvertently creating any negative impact on
> activity levels. This is
> an admirable goal, but IMHO the integrity of the
> competition takes
> precedence. I don't think it's fair to blame lower
> levels of microwave
> activity on the limited multi category. If people
> have microwave gear
> and don't get on because activity is low, that's
> their choice. There is
> nothing forcing them to run limited multi, other
> than the fact that they
> apparently think it's more fun.
>
> Limited multi is what got me to buy equipment for
> 50/144/222/432 and try
> to pull together a bunch of guys to operate the
> contest. While I think
> microwaves are cool, and I admire the guys who go to
> the trouble to get
> it working, to me it's more work and $$$ than I'm
> willing to undertake.
>
> There's two sides...
>
> 73,
>
> Dave/K8CC
>
>
> kr7o@vhfdx.com wrote:
> > I am going to try and stay out of the rover issue.
> There were some good
> > changes made, and some...... (I will stop here).
> Time will tell. Out on
> > the west coast, but the limited-multi fixed class
> killed 95% of all
> > microwave activity in CA for years.
> >
> > Related to that:
> >
> > 2.6.2.Limited Multioperator: Stations submit logs
> with a maximum of four
> > bands used. (Logs from additional bands used, if
> any, should be included as
> > checklogs.)
> >
> > I am not sure if this exact wording was in the
> previous version, but the
> > SHOULD in this line needs to read MUST BE
> SUBMITTED! In this era of
> > computer log checking where participants are
> penalized for NIL contacts, it
> > is unacceptable for any multi-op to submit a
> partial log. They MUST submit
> > their entire log and the the Cabrillo header needs
> to specify which bands
> > that station wishes judged for the contest.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 73, Robert KR7O/YB2ARO, DM07ba/OI52ee (ex.
> N7STU)
> > kr7o@vhfdx.com
> >
> > www.vhfdx.com (KR7O/YB2ARO homepages)
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > VHFcontesting mailing list
> > VHFcontesting@contesting.com
> >
>
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> VHFcontesting mailing list
> VHFcontesting@contesting.com
>
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
> More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL
> Mail ! - http://webmail.aol.com
> _______________________________________________
> VHFcontesting mailing list
> VHFcontesting@contesting.com
>
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
|