I hope so. There will still be Novices and Techs with 'old' Novice privs. Let's try to keep them involved in mainstream activities. 73, Hans, K0HB -- CQ-Contest on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/_cq-
Read all about it at: http://www.phillynews.com/inquirer/2000/Feb/15/magazine/HAM15.htm -- CQ-Contest on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/ Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST@contes
WX0B. This, in my mind, is *PRECISELY* why SS *should* be checked very strenuously. SS has it's roots in traffic handling, and the emphasis of the contest has always been a "copying" contest. Rather
Whoa! Hold it right there, Pilgrim! I haven't seen anything in the rules which says "you must show up in at least 4 logs or you don't count". In fact, if that is so, it takes away a tried-and-true SS
As I read that, calls can be absent for the database for two reasons: 1) They are judged incorrect. 2) They were found in less than 4 logs. In all the explanations I've see so far, it isn't clear to
This message will probably make me about as popular as screen doors on a submarine, but hey, I've been flamed by the best.... The 'mini-flap' about too-tough checking in the SS contest just triggered
Behold, a new age! Contesters who can copy an exchange! 73, de Hans, K0HB (Shields up, Scotty!) -- ~~~ Observation the morning after the contest: "A logging computer lets you make more mistakes faste
That's a good question, Ron. I think it really depends on who you ask. My "thing" is that "contesters ought to copy what is sent", so for me, I'd like to see "supercheck partial" go away, along with
Why? (This is not a smart-@$$ question.) So long as my submitted log accurately shows what I sent for each exchange, and your log contains the same information received, neither of us loses the QSO.
Actually, I feel exactly the opposite! In most contests (with the exception of November Sweepstakes) I consider myself a casual operator, but take some pride in trying to turn in the mythical golden