Hi Chris,
Glad to see I'm not alone in thinking the /qrp is a bad idea!
I'm just curious, however: how does adding anything to either the call (the
/qrp) or the exchange
prevent cheating? A cheat will do whatever you require him to do to cover up
his cheating. And as we
know, relative signal strength just is not proof of excess power: lots of QRP
stations sound QRO and lots
of QRO stations sound QRP just because of skip angles.
Aside from having wattmeter-bearing referees in every shack, there seems to be
just no way to address
power cheating.
73, kelly
ve4xt
>
> From: DL8MBS <prickler.schneider@t-online.de>
> Date: 2008/03/11 Tue AM 10:47:57 CDT
> To: cq-contest@contesting.com
> Subject: [CQ-Contest] qrp-declaration...
>
> If detecting cheaters by monitoring stations is an aim (a good one I
> think) why not better add a power designator to the exchange like H, L,
> Q (RDXA already being a contest with a REAL exchange)? It is only one
> additional character and sent by EVERY station - not coming out of the
> blue like every 23rd station being qrp and sending something cryptic
> with a slash.
>
> I do some QRP-contesting and it would take an armed man in my shack to
> make me send an additional /qrp - if it were allowed in DL and not
> making me multi-op ;-) I´m thankful for every guy on the other end
> taking the time for more than one request about call and serial number.
> Should I also torture him with guessing what´s behind the slash? IMHO NO.
>
> But: RDXC is a great contest!
>
> Only my two eurocents.
> 73, Chris
>
> (www.dl8mbs.de)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|