[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] LOTW DXCC

To: "'Igor Sokolov'" <ua9cdc@r66.ru>, <cq-contest@contesting.com>,"'Jim Rhodes'" <k0xu@iowadsl.net>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] LOTW DXCC
From: "Joe Subich, K4IK" <k4ik@subich.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 14:50:11 -0400
List-post: <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
It is far easier to establish security and validation in advance 
than spend all the time to investigate, prove and then "clean up" 
after significant cheating.  

Look at the problems with operations that lacked documentation 
in years past - before the acceptance rules were tightened.  In 
addition, look at the problems from by alleged QSL managers a 
few years ago and the difficulty in cleaning up that mess.  

I am sorry that you feel that the documentation standard for 
LotW is excessive and hope that ARRL can eventually reach an 
agreement with other national societies to make that checking 
more convenient to those outside North America.  In the meantime, 
why not put up with the one-time inconvenience in exchange for 
much easier QSLing in the future? 


   ... Joe, K4IK 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com 
> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Igor Sokolov
> Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 8:51 AM
> To: cq-contest@contesting.com; Jim Rhodes
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] LOTW DXCC
> Sorry you cannot share my sentiments. Nobody should be suspected in
> cheating unless  proved otherwise. I think that is where we should be
> heading. Cheaters only cheat themselves and sooner or later their
> cheating is obvious to public.
> 73, Igor UA9CDC

CQ-Contest mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>