CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] Self-spotting explanation from CQWW blog

To: "'MARK BAILEY'" <kd4d@comcast.net>, <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Self-spotting explanation from CQWW blog
From: "Rich Assarabowski" <konecc@snet.net>
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2017 09:47:54 -0400
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
Mark:

Don't get me wrong, I'm in favor of keeping the single-op category, always have 
been.    But prohibiting self-spotting in single-op unassisted means these 
enforcement issues will continue to hound us ...    And if the rules are 
changed to allow self-spotting, how does one self-spot in single-op without the 
Internet?  

That was my point.

--- Rich K1CC

-----Original Message-----
From: MARK BAILEY [mailto:kd4d@comcast.net] 
Sent: Monday, April 17, 2017 9:05 AM
To: cq-contest@contesting.com; Rich Assarabowski
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Self-spotting explanation from CQWW blog

Hi Rich:

I do not agree that forcing everyone who wants to compete onto the internet 
("nail in the coffin for the single operator categories") is the right answer - 
I think we should retain single-operator categories.

Clearly, the assisted and multi-operator categories will continue to move more 
and more on to the internet (self-spotting, social media, etc.).  There should 
continue to be single operator categories for the luddites like me who want the 
option to play on the radio - and these categories should prohibit 
self-spotting.

There may be cheating that cannot be detected, similar to the situation with 
power cheating and remote receivers, but that is not a sufficient reason to 
eliminate categories.  Otherwise, we end up with a single category: "anything 
goes".

73,

Mark, KD4D

_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

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