We get it. We totally get it and we think this is ultracool to watch. At least I did. Fascinating. To us. I just hope nobody shares this video with non-cons as a way to highlight how much fun contest
To further counter the perception of Hans as a fuddy-duddy, isn't he the author of the HB prime directive? That being: whatever isn't prohibited is mandatory. 73, kelly, ve4xt Sent from my iPhone ___
Further to Hans' point: some contests define assistance as the use of local, multi-channel decoders (local skimmers), but do not include in that definition local, single-channel decoders. A local ski
Doug's right. Unenforceability doesn't mean you can't spell out expected behaviour. True integrity is behaving correctly even when you know you can't be caught. Would the people who subscribe to the
Duelling CQs seems to be a surprise only to those who haven't been paying attention. It's always been part of my lexicon that duelling CQs are just a part of SO2R. 73, kelly, ve4xt Sent from my iPhon
Hi Steve, Granted, however, if you have good antenna systems on both bands (and good propagation on both) and youre running dueling CQs, isnt a potential outcome of both CQs an answer to each, and th
Hi Steve, I submit that's not the point of SO2R, it's merely the level of proficiency most users have settled into. These folks have simply evolved past that level. I was reacting to the suggestion,
I simply can't, for the life of me, figure out what so many are objecting to. The jump to MM can't have been a guaranteed win, since how do we know all the scores had been reported to 3830? Maybe one
Jeff, Massaging your entry to attempt to qualify for an easier category you don't is unethical. Entering a TOUGHER category than you operated? Why is that even an issue? If you start a contest in hig
I suggest we'll be successful eliminating QSO B4 about the same time we get rid of "please copy"... 73, Kelly ve4xt Sent from my iPad _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailin
Not to mention the fact that not all operations occur within range of the Internet. I would hate to lose rover categories or portable operations just because someone had a solution in search of a pro
One could argue poor sportsmanship is being displayed by those kvetching about their win, especially absent any facts. A definition of poor sportsmanship in the link you provide is "breaking the rule
Hi Steve, Confusion over what constitutes assisted exists only in the minds of some operators. The rules make it pretty clear: outside agencies providing QRG info or local multi-channel decoders prov
Some of the most-common time-wasters among new contesters I hear are: 1. Unnecessarily repeating phonetics. In most cases, you should be able to say nq6n 599 mb. Only if its really challenging or a f
Why not change the justice system while were at it. Most people charged are guilty, so lets dispense with due process ;=) If you can prove a bust, remove it. If you cant prove a bust, you cant prove
Hi Doug Nobody is suggesting otherwise, Stephen is merely pointing out that unless an organizer pays to send someone to the stations claiming that overlay, you can never be certain the claim is legit
Every contest has its own quirks likely purposefully built in to create its own feel. WAE has QTCs, SS has a long exchange and work 'em once only, WW has everybody works everybody but some equals are
That's a common misreading of Part 97. Part 97 doesn't prohibit winning prizes. Part 97 does prohibit being paid to operate: IOW: you can't be paid by the New York Times to use ham radio to provide m
Paul, if youre reading this, please get back to me. If anyone knows Pauls address, please let me know, or at least let him know Im seeking him. Its for SS CW. Thanks 73, kelly, ve4xt, _______________
Hi Stephen, Thanks for mentioning one-way prop. Those who are in more blessed locations might refuse to believe it till they experience it themselves. Many a time in the 80s (my 80-m loop was a kille