If you know/see that the station has a wide signal, and if its bothers you,
don’t work them!
When you work a station /Q, you feel the station should be disqualified;
still you work the station because you want the points?
How is that called?
It is much better to make sure your own signal is clean.
There are great way’s to review signal quality.
73
Steef PA3S
http://youtu.be/in_XTH34BtA
2013/11/4 Paul O'Kane <pokane@ei5di.com>
>
> The CQWW sponsors are leading the way in defining and,
> hopefully, clamping down on unsportsmanlike conduct.
>
> They say " "Examples of unsportsmanlike conduct include.....
> 5. Signals with excessive bandwidth (e.g., splatter, clicks)"
>
> Anyone who uses SDR-based panadaptors, including the Elecraft
> P3, can recognise and measure wide signals instantly - by just
> looking at them.
>
> It seems to me that if we had an agreed method of reporting
> excessive bandwidth, contest sponsors could confirm it for
> themselves by checking their SDR recordings - using times
> and frequencies from our Cabrillo logs.
>
> The question arises, how would each of us indicate wide
> signals from other stations we work - not to mention the
> ones we might prefer not to work.
>
> The ones we work are easy. My suggestion is to add /Q to
> the callsign logged. I'm using Q, because it cannot be
> confused with another country's callsign - no calls begin
> with Q. There may be implications for dupe-checking with
> some software, but nothing that can't be supported with a
> few extra lines of code.
>
> There are other options, but I would not consider varying
> the usual 59(9) reports because it would take longer.
>
> 73,
> Paul EI5DI
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|