Jeff,
I have to agree with you on this one. I've heard K5ZD say many time
that good SO2R is undetectable to others on the band, and its my opinion
that this is true for those contesters who are good at it. Not actively
listening for responses on a frequency you're CQing on does not fit that
description. Sure, it's easier, but I think it makes you a lid in most
people's minds, simply because they're trying to work you and you're
operating in a way which precludes this. Sounds like the definition of
a lid to me.
And since when is it legit for a single-op to transmit simultaneously on
two frequencies? I know the ARRL does not allow it, but what is the
Sprint's stance on this? Again, if you're CQing in two places and not
processing in real time the receive stream resulting from those CQs,
you're a lid as described above.
As a fan (and early adopter of SO2R), it really irritates me that
certain people are giving SO2R a bad name through their poor operating.
Going back to the statement attributed to K5ZD above, if SO2R were
practiced in such a way that it's undetectable on the bands, nobody
would be complaining (well, nobody except K4WW). It seems to me that
the "first generation" of SO2Rers (going back to N2NT, K3UA, K3LR and
others in the 70s) knew this, but it's been lost on the "second
generation" of newcomers who seem to think it's "all about CQing".
73,
Dave/K8CC
ku8e wrote:
> It's interesting this topic came up. Just the other day while having lunch
> with K4BAI (and talking about the Sprint) I made the comment to John that "I
> sure had a hard time working N4AF" I think I called him 20 times and never
> made it through to him. Finally,
> he called me on 80 CW while I was CQing". John's reply was " Yeah that was
> probably because he was doing SO2R and working someone on his other radio."
>
> Personally I would like to see SO2R go away. Before you SO2R diehards start
> telling
> me to learn SO2R so I can become a good operator too...done it... I did SO2R
> for many years when I lived in Ohio and got to be very good at it. Of course
> you guys that are doing it are going to find a reason to defend SO2R because
> it gives you a competitive advantage over those that don't do it. Those small
> advantages are often the difference between winning and losing.
>
>
> Now that I more of a casual contester due to station limitations I see many
> flaws in the SO2R concept. There seem to be too many ways that people can
> bend the rules (or loop holes in the rules) and not be penalized. Problems
> always seem to occur when a SO2R operator vacates his run frequency and
> someone else takes it. A frequency fight usually occurs in that case with the
> SO2R operator claiming the frequency as his even though he vacated it.
>
> N6TR mentioned some who was calling CQ to solicit contacts on two bands at
> the same time, That is definitely breaking the Special QSY Rule . Plus, how
> do you prove that someone is not transmitting on two bands and the same time.
> I don't think most SO2R operators have a lockout system. That would break the
> rules because you be doing Multi-Multi in that case.
>
> It seems many contests have this loop hole that if you are not transmitting
> on two bands at the same time you are not operating two bands at the same
> time. (even thought you might be in the middle of a QSO with someone on one
> of those bands.) How are you ever going prove someone is cheating? The only
> way I see that you could do it is to have something like the 10 minute rule
> they have for M/S stations in many contests - But that would probably take
> away the competitve advantage you gained doing SO2R.
>
>
> Jeff KU8E
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> 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
|