Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +from:4o3a@t-com.me: 37 ]

Total 37 documents matching your query.

1. Re: [CQ-Contest] Is it time to reevaluate CQWW Scoring Rules? (score: 1)
Author: "4O3A" <4o3a@t-com.me>
Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2009 19:35:42 +0100
Hi David, Now it hurts? What do you say if look at SSB scores, multiply each QSO 3pts, equally for all and take a look. 4O3A should be WW winner, and scores weight looks much more reasonable. Why not
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-12/msg00146.html (8,300 bytes)

2. Re: [CQ-Contest] A new "DX cluster" experience for contesters (score: 1)
Author: "4O3A" <4o3a@t-com.me>
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 14:36:09 +0200
Whatever No decoding technology helps to OP, make his available time more efficient and push him to be more preshurized on efficient operating, all is on the good way. I understand both standings - K
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2010-04/msg00268.html (10,995 bytes)

3. Re: [CQ-Contest] Marathon Cheating - N2IC post: WOW (score: 1)
Author: 4O3A <4o3a@t-com.me>
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 16:37:04 +0200
Hi Mladen and others, It is also unclear to me what happened with my log and I have asked for clarification from CQWW CC and CQ Magazine. I am ready to disclose all the details about my log and the i
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2012-09/msg00174.html (8,737 bytes)

4. Re: [CQ-Contest] Two points for intra-NA QSOs in CQWW? (score: 1)
Author: 4O3A <4o3a@t-com.me>
Date: Sat, 09 Mar 2013 17:22:18 +0100
I completed the survey, but something is missing there. Randy should consider different scoring for EU stations as well. Maybe 2 points for EU-EU contacts, what will make scores from EU more competit
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2013-03/msg00169.html (9,395 bytes)

5. [CQ-Contest] CQ Rome (score: 1)
Author: 4O3A <4o3a@t-com.me>
Date: Sat, 04 Jan 2014 18:18:09 +0100
Will spent night 16-17 January in Rome, and would be nice to take a coffee with some contesters close to Fiumicino? 73 Ranko _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing list CQ
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2014-01/msg00011.html (6,431 bytes)

6. Re: [CQ-Contest] The two/four-point rule in WPX (score: 1)
Author: 4O3A <4o3a@t-com.me>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2014 15:03:01 +0200
It is one of our crucial issues - scoring. Kim is absolutely right, and from my point of view, all what he is saying is so obvious, clear and aright, that I do not understand some polemics. We all wo
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2014-04/msg00128.html (12,205 bytes)

7. [CQ-Contest] 4O3A MS setup in CQ WW SSB (score: 1)
Author: 4O3A <4o3a@t-com.me>
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 13:54:51 +0100
Some useful information about setup and hardware solution we used in CQ WW SSB can be found here - http://4o3a.com/index.php/4o3a-station/stories/cqww-2014 73 Ranko __________________________________
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2014-11/msg00074.html (6,803 bytes)

8. [CQ-Contest] Fwd: UStream (score: 1)
Author: Ranko Boca <4o3a@t-com.me>
Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2014 00:43:35 +0100
Live video from 4O3A is on url below GL in contest to everyone -- Forwarded message -- From: "Marko Tomaevi" <marko@tomasevic.me> Date: 29 Nov 2014 00:40 Subject: UStream To: "Ranko Boca" <4o3a.ranko
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2014-11/msg00206.html (6,812 bytes)

9. Re: [CQ-Contest] WRTC2018 Qualifying (score: 1)
Author: 4O3A <4o3a@t-com.me>
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2014 00:23:07 +0100
Hi to all, I hope that some comments will be considered and Team selection criteria will be changed a bit? For me and all contesters whom I discussed with, obvious problem is having to short selectio
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2014-12/msg00041.html (11,660 bytes)

10. [CQ-Contest] Need clarification from DL1MGB (score: 1)
Author: 4O3A <4o3a@t-com.me>
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 15:30:51 +0100
Hi Chris, would you be so kind to clafiry what exactly mean definition below: *Assisted scores are compared against Unassisted scores. If someone make in CQWW as unassisted - 10 points Another guy ma
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2014-12/msg00259.html (7,765 bytes)

11. Re: [CQ-Contest] Need clarification from DL1MGB (score: 1)
Author: 4O3A <4o3a@t-com.me>
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 18:21:28 +0100
Sinisa/David, If it is a true, than organizer missed the essence of WRTC. I still hope it could be a mistake, or unclear rules. Otherwise, it's senseless and for some reason organizer wants to push a
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2014-12/msg00268.html (12,404 bytes)

12. Re: [CQ-Contest] Need clarification from DL1MGB (score: 1)
Author: 4O3A <4o3a@t-com.me>
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 22:03:07 +0100
Hello Chris, This is clear now. Thank you very much. So nobody who would like to qualify for WRTC will not operate unassisted in next two years, as it is senseless. Chris, it will be very kind if you
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2014-12/msg00279.html (11,137 bytes)

13. Re: [CQ-Contest] Need clarification from DL1MGB (score: 1)
Author: 4O3A <4o3a@t-com.me>
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 11:10:14 +0100
Mat, thanks to you and others for being open and fair, trying to convince Cris and his team to modify rules to be at least acceptable. Not only Ass/ vs Unass, but all five rules weaknesses I noticed
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2014-12/msg00307.html (15,647 bytes)

14. Re: [CQ-Contest] Clarification from DL1MGB (score: 1)
Author: 4O3A <4o3a@t-com.me>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 12:58:18 +0100
Dear Chris, nice that you consider our opinions. Intention is not to criticize. On the contrary, we all want to help you to make rules to be as good as possible, and I am sure - it is our common inte
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2014-12/msg00366.html (10,208 bytes)

15. Re: [CQ-Contest] Clarification from DL1MGB (score: 1)
Author: 4O3A <4o3a@t-com.me>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 18:49:48 +0100
Hi Martin and Frank, I really appreciate different opinions, and will answers you as simple as possible. I do not thing that difference Unassisted vs Assisted is step forward in contesting. It is jus
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2014-12/msg00375.html (14,521 bytes)

16. Re: [CQ-Contest] Need clarification from DL1MGB (score: 1)
Author: 4O3A <4o3a@t-com.me>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 19:21:16 +0100
Hello Chris, I would like to make comment of rules once more time. One decision, which disturb all of potential qualifiers is a given qualification time - years 2015 and 2016. Reason for this - as yo
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2014-12/msg00376.html (15,743 bytes)

17. [CQ-Contest] CQ WW CW MS Claimed EU record - Few words about 4O3A operation (score: 1)
Author: 4O3A <4o3a@t-com.me>
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2014 14:08:46 +0100
http://4o3a.com/index.php/4o3a-station/stories/cqww-2014-cw _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing list CQ-Contest@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listi
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2014-12/msg00450.html (9,842 bytes)

18. Re: [CQ-Contest] WRTC QUALIFICATION (score: 1)
Author: 4O3A <4o3a@t-com.me>
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2014 23:05:52 +0100
Yes Jim, 5000 Euros entry tickets is much more clear. I would rather accept organizer to invite teams by whatever own criteria they like, instead bad rules. Myself, I am thinking should I quit and vi
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2014-12/msg00484.html (18,147 bytes)

19. [CQ-Contest] WRTC 2018 qualifications (score: 1)
Author: 4O3A <4o3a@t-com.me>
Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 18:13:20 +0200
Once more I would like to ask our German friends to reconsider two important parts of rules: 1. Qualification period. It is really too short. Needless to repeat reasons why it should be longer. 2. We
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2015-05/msg00739.html (9,169 bytes)

20. Re: [CQ-Contest] WRTC 2018 qualifications (score: 1)
Author: 4O3A <4o3a@t-com.me>
Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 00:29:41 +0200
Hi Martin, Your opinion has some logic, indeed. Respecting different opinions, I just want to ask German friends to reconsider and discuss sensitive and important part of rules. That's all, and their
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2015-05/msg00755.html (12,545 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu