Greetings John, and congratulations on your tremendous result in the
10 Meter Contest! This is an awesome score from VK!
> 1. The majority of DX operators, without access to internet, rely on
> their local amateur radio journal for the rules of the contest. The
> rules of the 10m contest published in the Wireless Institute of
> Australia (WIA) November 1998 amateur radio journal made no mention of
> the 10m contest free zone.
>
> 2. I checked my copy of CQ magazine for the 10m rules published in Dec
> 1997. Again there was no mention of any 10m contest free zone. [...]
>
> 3. I am a regular subscriber and reader of CQ contest journal.
> [there was no mention...]
> 4. All of these journals do their very best to support and promote all
> contests - including ARRL contests. If the contest journal editors new
> nothing about the new rule, I am left wondering how the ARRL expected
> all DX and North American contesters to be aware of the new rule.
[For the moment, let's set aside the fact that I personally consider
the contest free zone to be an ill-conceived idea.]
Firstly, all ham journals are faced with a dilemma when they publish
their contest calendars: they wish to be informative yet use their
magazine pages in an efficient manner. This is why they publish
*summaries* in lieu of the complete rules.
Secondly, the Upcoming Contests section of most journals runs on
autopilot. The little summaries you read in any given journal were
probably originally written back in 1973 and haven't changed since,
save for the dates.
Personally, I consider all this to be dancing around the issue. The
ARRL is the source of the Real Rules[tm] for the ARRL 10 Meter
Contest, not the WIA, RSGB, REF, ARI, RAC, CQ Magazine, etc. You can
request copies of the rules via email, postal mail, telephone, etc.
However, if you don't have access to the ARRL then you _do the best
you can with the information you have._"
> 6. [...] I read the
> clear message that Dan does not want to see my log. At least I am in
> good company - there were literally thousands DX QSOs made this weekend
> in the 10m contest free zone.
I don't read it that way at all. Please, send in your log and be
recognized for your activity and achievement.
> This 10m contest is too good to be spoiled
> by a poorly conceived and poorly communicated rule.
>
> I sincerly hope you North American chaps can sort this one out for a
> complete "win-win" solution.
I agree. The 10 Meter Contest is a fun activity and I agree that the
contest free zone is an ill-conceived rule that I had forgotten about
(again) until this big discussion and fretting about it resurfaced
(again) on the CQ-Contest mailing list.
You got on, made a big score, and had a good time. The people who got
a chance to make a contact with Australia enjoyed themselves as well.
I wouldn't let the inevitable, annual, rehash of this thread on a
silly Internet mailing list retroactively lessen my enjoyment of the
contest.
As for N1ND, I'd say he's in a tough spot trying to speak on behalf of
a hardly-enforcable, ill-conceived rule that he didn't write. However
within this context, I consider his comments about this broken rule to
be remarkably lucid. And I do hope that he and the boys at the ARRL
can come up with a fix.
Respectfully,
--Trey, N5KO
----------
N1ND writes:
> "If you're participating in the contest, you can't call "CQ Contest"
> between 28.3 and 28.35. That's quite clear, but there's no prohibition
> against answering someone else's "CQ Contest" in the window. They
> shouldn't be soliciting contacts on those frequencies either if they are
> planning to enter the contest, but if they are just DXing and are not
> planning to send in a log, there's nothing to penalize them for. You
> won't incur any penalty or risk by answering them, any more than you
> would if you coaxed a ragchewer into giving you a point."
--
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST@contesting.com
|