On Sun, Dec 16, 2007 at 09:30:13AM -0800, kr7o@vhfdx.com wrote:
> Jeez....
>
> Picking your best band(s) has always been allowed for limited-multi (and
> there is probably some ARRL correspondence floating around to back that up).
Yes it has, and I do not see a problem with this - I have done it a few times.
It gives more contacts to folks on whatever band or bands beyond
the four that we submit for the score. Since this is usually
1296 or higher - I dont see what the big deal is - generally we need
all the activity we can get on the high bands.
>
>
> At 08:07 AM 12/16/2007 -0800, Kenneth E. Harker wrote:
> >On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 01:14:19PM -0800, John Geiger wrote:
> > > 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.
> >
> >That depends. The "HF Contesting - Good Practices, Interpretations and
> >Suggestions" document release by the Contest Advisory Committee covers
> >this in section 7: http://www.arrl.org/contests/hf-faq.html
> >
> >Basically, if you are passing QSOs from bands other than your
> >designated band to your designated band, then you can't designate
> >your operation on that band as a single-band entry. For example,
> >if you submit as a 20 meter single band effort, but at some
> >point you passed a station from 40 meters to 20 meters, you've
> >been operating on 40 meters to improve your score, so you're
> >not really a single-band operation any more.
> >
> >Should the same principle apply to VHF contesting? I would think
> >so.
> >
> >
> > > 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
> >
> >--
> >Kenneth E. Harker WM5R
> >kenharker@kenharker.com
> >http://www.kenharker.com/
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >VHFcontesting mailing list
> >VHFcontesting@contesting.com
> >http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
>
> 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
--
George Fremin III - K5TR
geoiii@kkn.net
http://www.kkn.net/~k5tr
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
|