I would assume that the visual recording would be used to prove that you
were the only operator during the contest! Maybe we also need to think of
taking a voice print to ensure that the same person made all of the recorded
audio contacts? HE SAID TOUNGE IN CHEEK! HI HI
TNX & 73,
[mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf Of Paul J. Piercey
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 8:59 AM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Recording your CQ WW CW contest
So I guess the next generation of $12,000.00 rigs will have built-in
audio/visual recording capabilities.
73 -- Paul VO1HE
> -----Original Message-----
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org
> [mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf Of Scott Robbins
> Sent: December 14, 2007 14:14
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: [CQ-Contest] Recording your CQ WW CW contest
> >Mid June sometimes I turn on 6m and find a contest going on,
> so I pass
> >out a few points. Then it starts to rain and I stay on and
> play some
> >on 2m and 70cm. I send a log in and get a certificate. I
> didn't mean
> >to, but I accidentally became a 'serious' entrant. Should I
> be denied
> >a certificate because I didn't record the whole contest?
> Perhaps. Just like you have to log, you have to record if
> you expect to win.
> It is not at all unreasonable. What we're talking about here
> is a mindset shift, not unlike when the contest community
> switched from paper logging to computer based logging. The
> next logical step in the digital age is recording.
> >So what? WRTC is a limited event with a limited number of competing
> >stations. To require everyone who HOPES he might have a
> chance to win
> >to record all 48 hours or to DENY anyone who might be lucky
> enough to
> >surpass his own expectations and actually WIN the "title" because he
> >didn't record all
> >48 hours (or heaven forbid, had a recording failure) is asinine.
> I would venture at the top end of SOABHP radio contesting,
> that you are discussing a limited event with a limited number
> of stations as well. There are not 100 people vying for the
> top 10 in any category of any major contest.
> There are surely *100 entrants*, and I would say 95% or 98%
> of all of them have no reason to record themselves operating
> the contest.
> Recording should be right up there with logging. If you
> didn't log it, you didn't work it. If you didn't record it,
> you didn't work it. Very simple.
> >Contest sponsors and log checkers can properly review the
> logs of the
> >top stations without either recordings or making the logs
> public. If
> >they can't they might as well cancel the whole contest because they
> >don't have any business sponsoring the event.
> That is apparently incorrect on its face. Because if contest
> sponsors and log checkers COULD properly review the logs
> without recordings and determine who is legit and who is not,
> we wouldn't be having this discussion about cheating, would we?
> >So now I have to record an entire contest somehow and if by
> chance my
> >hard drive crashes on the way back to the USA my score does
> not count....
> That is correct. Just like if you have no log, with no
> recording you have no entry. Logs are backed up to floppies
> or by other means when operating the contest, recordings can
> be as well.
> >This is 21st century.... What tape you are talking about.
> Get yourself
> >cheap MP3 player with line input and 1-2Gig of memory and you can
> >easily record 48 hours 2 radio and get file transferred to
> you home PC
> >for later use.
> Like I said ... SIMPLE.
> Scott Robbins, W4PA
> W4PA Contest Blog - http://w4pa.journalspace.com What Is
> Radio Contesting? - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contesting
> Looking for last minute shopping deals?
> Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
> CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest mailing list