[RMVHF] Contest rules and ethics in the real world.

[Jim W0EEA]

Hi,

With all the discussions lately about contest rules and ethics you might 
appreciate the latest situation herein.

Although others have helped greatly from time to time,  Lou, N9KC and I 
(W0EEA) have done most of the work to build,  equip,  and maintain a 
VHF/UHF/uW station on the Colorado high plains East of the Rockies and 
SE of Denver.  We've both been VHF contesters for decades.

We decided to operate the station during this year's ARRL UHF Contest in 
the multi-operator class (unlike the VHF contests there is only one 
multi-op class in this contest).  Although our (potential) score was 
already a Division record in our Class when the bands died Saturday 
night we decided to come back and operate some more Sunday morning.  

(You guys on the East coast may find how few contacts can be made in 
Denver on Sunday morning interesting.)

The decision to return Sunday was in itself probably a questionable 
decision,  as it involved 130 miles of driving between us.  We made one 
contact all Sunday morning,  with KB0HH on 1296 cw,  tried with KB0HH on 
902.1 but failed to complete that one,  heard one other new station in 
Kansas that could have resulted in points if he had ever heard us,  
which he didn't,  and then saw a signal up the band a _short_ ways on 
the 432 MHz band scope and went to check it out.  Turns out the third 
station was working through a satellite.  If when he said that,  we had 
replied,  "I didn't intend to be repeated, sorry,  73 we're out of 
here,  W0EEA clear"  I'd have sent in the logs for score with a clear 
conscience.  But we didn't do that.  Things were so slow we stayed and 
chatted for a minute.  Okay that's not really right,  but I'd probably 
have thought it over,  then written that off too as we had no intention 
to count the contact.  (Now that I think about it,  transmitting a KW on 
a satellite input frequency while not knowing if we were pointed at it,  
after we found out it was an input and what that might have done to the 
satellite,  bothers my sense of ethics more than hanging around for 
another minute or two.  I sincerely apologize for that,  it won't happen 
again.)  But then we crossed the line and asked the other op to meet us 
on 432.100.  No way to reconcile that,  it is a clear and specific 
violation of the rules.  

You can't argue intent,  the intent is inherent in the question.  The 
rule says you can't say that.  It was said.  The statement  wasn't 
qualified.  There are no extenuating circumstances.  So our log goes in 
as a check log.  Neither of us likes it,  but I don't see any choice.  

By the way, when I say I, I really mean I.  And when I say 'we' I really 
mean 'we' too.  In both this example and the one in the one involving 
Ping Jockey below one of us acted while the other sat and watched,  each 
of us playing the part of the actor once.  But in both cases neither of 
us noticed the violation at the time but only came to realize it later.  
This email isn't about who did what or even why or who noticed it 
later.  It is about the ethics of what you have to do as a result.

Written hours later:  
It gets even more interesting.  Seems the satellite in question is AO-7 
which was launched in 1974,  failed in 1981,  and came back to life in 
2002.  Its transponder uplink from 432.125 to 432.175 is now illegal for 
satellite use.  So the transponder in question should have been turned 
off forever years ago,  but randomly may turn itself on anytime the 
satellite is in sunlight.

 From AMSAT's web site:
"Potential users should realize that when they are uplinking to a 
satellite, they are no longer operating in the Amateur Service but 
instead operating in the Amateur Satellite Service. Thus they are 
subject to Amateur Satellite Service rules. Therefore uplinking to AO-7 
is possibly illegal since the Amateur Satellite Service is not permitted 
at 432.1 MHz. Also, since the IARU bandplan has the 432.1 MHz range 
earmarked as "weak signal" in all three Regions, it would appear that 
all users trying to access the uplink are also outside the Amateur 
Satellite Service rules and regulations."

For the record: We were not intentionally trying to use the satellite.  
The gentleman we worked did list the contact on AMSAT's AO-7 contacts 
log.  I'm glad I decided on sending a check log before I found this:   
http://www.planetemily.com/ao7/ao7log.php

How's this for an ethical statement:  I don't feel so bad about maybe 
having damaged it now.  (The AMSAT AO-7 web site says AO-7 has an 
excellent receiver.  An EIRP of 5 watts aimed at it should be sufficient 
to be heard well.  We were running about 800W and two stacked KLM 30LBXs.)

Back to the 1st draft:
This is our second check log in three or four years.  In January a while 
back we responded to a ham who thanked us for a M/S contact on Ping 
Jockey forgetting that it automatically put my call AND GRID in the 
message.  Having spotted ourselves on that reflector we immediately 
received a request for another M/S QSO and acted on it,  so check log it 
was.  Is there a way to say thanks during a contest or do you have to 
wait until after its over?  I think you have to wait.

Now the most interesting part of the discussion.  Lou and I are in 
complete disagreement about submitting the log for score.  Lou says 
there was no intent when we arrived on the frequency to violate the 
rules and no points were made as a result so score it.  I obviously 
disagree.  I can understand how such disagreements can occur.  Just look 
at the Supreme Court of the United States decisions published in June 
and you can see an analogous one.  By a five to four vote the Supremes 
decided that the Constition (Bill of Rights) really does mean what it 
says (City of Washington D.C. vs. Heller).  The four dissenting votes 
were from Justices who would prefer the Constitution said something 
other than that a 'Right of the People' 'shall not be infringed' and 
would have said in essence that it can't mean that because they don't 
want it to.  I cite the Supreme Court example to show how universal 
these differences of opinion are and hopefully to show that I (and the 
Court) came to the right decisions.  The Court shouldn't invent or 
reinterpret law out of the penumbra or thin air,  and hams shouldn't 
treat rules that way either.  

If the SCotUS can have this kind of disagreement about the intent,  
meaning,  and effects  of a single sentence,  and they regularly do,  
should it surprise us that we do?

Well, (Rules for Contests above 50 MHz) Rule 1.7.2 is as explicit as any:  

1.7.2. Contest entrants may not transmit on repeaters or repeater 
frequencies for the purpose of soliciting contacts.

"... meet me on 432.100" is as clear a violation of that rule as can 
exist,  and therefore the log is a check log.  I can understand why 
someone would say he wishes it wasn't so,  but as with the four Justices 
in the minority above it just is so.

Another example from the real world:  Some years back,  a guest operator 
at my station,  with ten minutes to go in a VHF QSO Party,  used the 
stations two meter KW and high gain antenna to call a friend of his.  He 
clearly stated he was not in the contest,  he was not willing to work 
anyone in the contest,  and he was calling a friend who was not in the 
contest in his first transmission.  Half a dozen stations immediately 
tried to work him for contest credit.  Another station in the area then 
immediately told the guys asking the 'new guy' for a contact, "Come on,  
that's not fair,  he said he's not in the contest."  (Thanks Ken, you 
beat me to it by about two seconds and you were a lot more polite about 
it than I would have been.)  I also immediately told the not quite 
rookie guest op (2nd major VHF contest) about the rule in question and 
that he should have waited for ten minutes (after it ended) and then 
called his friend.  No points for score attempted by anyone,  no intent 
to violate the rules,  new guy knows the right behavior now,  I sent 
that log in for score with a clear conscience.  Remember if we want new 
VHF contesters we need to be tolerant of such innocent mistakes as long 
as we correct their causes.  

All of which brings to mind a question or three:  How many of us,  even 
those who have been doing this for decades,  have studied the rules well 
enough to remember each and every word of each and every rule now,  let 
alone during the intensity of the contests themselves?  Maybe one of the 
things we ought to do is reread them more often?  Shouldn't the rules be 
rewritten,  specifically for the one contest they apply to,  since they 
are on the net anyway not in the magazine anymore,  and one set of 
rules, in one place, with no hierarchy of exceptions and overrides that 
would be subject to confusion over wording,   interpretation, and 
precedence?  How does CQ get their rules for a VHF contest on one 8.5" x 
11" page when it takes three sets of rules and sixteen pages (text only 
dropped into MS Word) for a typical ARRL VHF contest?  There are only 
two calls listed as operators on the Cabrillo header for this UHF 
contest.  If this happened at a larger group's contest site and there 
were fifteen would whoever was submitting the log have been able to come 
to the same conclusion I did or would he all but have to submit the log 
for score?

73 and see you on the air in September if not sooner,

Jim  W0EEA  DM79vh
www.w0eea.com