Now you’re just making stuff up to defend the indefensible.
Well, Inspector Clouseau, they were all hypothetical questions.
- Glenn W9IQ
All hypothetical, yes. And not necessarily wrong, depending on one's personal point of view. But food for thought considering the relatively new concept of commercial pay-for-play remote ham radio super-stations when it comes to using them consistently to achieve awards and winning contests.
You're essentially paying money for external "muscle" when you ordinarily wouldn't be able to achieve the same result with your own designed station on your own property. To me, an unfair advantage creating an unbalanced playing field between equally skilled operators. A different story if you *owned* a remote station that you designed and constructed (having professional tower construction doesn't matter...a safety and physical limitation many can't perform themselves). Take a world-class contester operating his own station with property location and antenna restrictions vs his *paying* to operate a remote super-station in the same contest...guaranteed a huge difference in the score.
Just like there's different contest categories to ensure equal playing fields...single vs multi-op; high vs low power; assisted vs unassisted; tri-band vs wire antennas...perhaps the contest sponsors should consider another category like "commercial remote". Same thing with awards like DXCC, WAZ, etc.
I know it's just a hobby, but in the spirit of competition, skill-set, and achievement, maybe it's time for some rules and requirements to be revised.
Bob K7JQ