If the incentive (whether it be wine or logbooks) is advertised publically
and is freely available to all, I see no problem. I believe that would be a
reasonable position.
73, Ward N0AX
----- Original Message -----
From: Dennis McAlpine <dennis.mcalpine@verizon.net>
To: Silver Ward <hwardsil1@mindspring.com>; <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 7:34 PM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] The Difference Between Rules and Ethics
> So what constitutes "substantive"? Is a bottle of Maderia wine for
working
> s a station on multiple bands "substantive/" How about the CA QSO Party
> where the top out-of-state scores receive a bottle of CA wine. Do you
> disqualify the entire contest for that? I must confess I did not declare
it
> on my tax return. How about a tee-shirt for working 100 Italians (running
> only 300 watts of course) in the WAIP Contest? Maybe we should do away
with
> door prizes at Dayton. And, maybe forget the free hats at Yaesu. Say,
what
> about the freebie Kenwood log books? Once you go down this road, it ay a
> hard one to navigate without running into some potholes.
> 73,
> Dennis K2SX
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Silver Ward" <hwardsil1@mindspring.com>
> To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
> Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 11:47 AM
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] The Difference Between Rules and Ethics
>
>
> > > So offhand, I'd say that if a station offers something of little or no
> > real
> > > value, like a "worked on 6 bands" certificate, it should not be an
> ethical
> > > violation. Let's not squeeze all the fun out of things. Something
more
> > > substansive, though, should be be prohibited -- in short, anything
that
> > > gives the appearance of "buying" contacts.
> > >
> > > 73, ron wn3vaw
> >
> > Of course! I'm not suggesting that we all have to become monastic
hermits
> > and conceal our identities with voice scramblers to submit single-op
> scores.
> >
> > Is the certificate or QSL available to all callers? Has the
solicitation
> > been widely advertised? In the case of encouraging activity, anything
> that
> > encourages others to be active and participate fairly and equally is a
> great
> > idea. K1XM and KQ1F are well-known for their beautiful photo QSLs and
> many
> > operators make a point to contact them for "this year's" models. But
they
> > certainly don't say, "work only us", and the resulting activity benefits
> all
> > competitors - good for them!
> >
> > The shoe can sometimes be on the other foot. Conversely (pun intended),
a
> > single-op with a bad reputation for QSLing can also create disincentives
> to
> > make QSOs, for example.
> >
> > Here is a personal example of my own... I was at one time considering
> > sponsoring a NW regional "SS Sprint" that would be a three-hour
> competition
> > for WA, OR, ID, BC, etc. stations on 40 and 80 between 9 PM and
midnight.
> > The idea was to increase activity on the low bands by stations that
> > otherwise would not be active and counteract some of the advantage on
> those
> > bands enjoyed by the 1-2-3-4-5 districts. After some consideration, it
> just
> > seemed too much like stocking the pond with local ops unlikely to work
> much
> > outside the region and I let the idea drop. Now maybe the idea of the
> > three-hour nighttime category for all entrants would be a good idea.
> > Anyway, you get the idea - it would facilitate the making of QSOs that
> were
> > likely to be unavailable to others.
> >
> > We will not all make the same determination of appropriateness in all
> cases.
> > However, the awareness that there IS an issue to be considered will
> improve
> > the sport and quality of competition.
> >
> > 73, Ward N0AX
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > CQ-Contest mailing list
> > CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
>
|