All, While I don't have an issue with Skimmer in the contests that allow it, I do have to wonder: do all contests need to have the same rules? I actually like the boy-and-his-radio (hello, Hans) flav
I would agree with Hans, but would add that the 'log' isn't just what you type into the computer. I would argue that if you write out a note during the contest correcting an entry, that note becomes
Paul, I'm afraid the logic of your argument might not quite hold water. ALL ARRL sections exist purely for administrative purposes. None exists for contesting reasons. That each section is also an SS
At the risk of getting too obvious... If you don't get the right exchange in a contest, shouldn't you just ask for it? I remember in SS many times getting back something like 'five nine three' and ha
Ummm, That's a question you'd have to put to the Thai authorities. I doubt Tree is an expert in Thai law. Most of the rest of us don't care. It matters not a whit to me where the operator is located:
I don't mind the idea of including something in the rules, and I applaud those stations who incorporate their callsign into the ack message (TU VE4XT). But I think complaining about it is much ado ab
Not to put too fine a point on it, but who wants to sit around waiting five minutes to see how long it takes for a station to ID anyway? Is ANY mult worth five minutes? (I will admit to those playing
Art, With all due respect, you're overreacting. You've never had a computer freeze or crash while trying to respond to someone? Never had an issue crop up just after a CQ (sneezing fit, RFI, blown fu
I have to side with Bob on this one. If the potential to cheat is that great, are we going to remove every rule? Can't enforce QRO: so do we eliminate LP, QRP? Can't enforce MO: so do we eliminate al
Maybe a new class: C as in SO2C, single op, two calls. Instead of using the second radio as a tool of the main station, it could run SS as a station unto itself... Tongue coming out of cheek now. 73,
As long as real-time reporting does not become the price of entry. Odd as it may sound, there are enough operators who don't have access to the internet from the places they wish to contest from. 73,
Apologies to NQ4I for saying this, however... If we're going to 'fix' WPX to salve Rick's hurt feelings over geography, then why shouldn't we fix all contests so that, say, VE4, VE5, W0, parts of W9
Not to disgree with everything Yuri writes, but often, multiple-choice university exams WILL include penalties for wrong answers to disincentivize guessing. (IOW: better to leave it blank than guess
If you're part of the generation that has felt the glow of at least one vacuum tube that was not part of a final amplifier, there will be a good enough supply of QSOs to keep you going for the rest o
Steef, Most of the remote operations I know about are like this: An operator who, for a variety of reasons (homeowners' association, antenna restrictions, lot size, apartment dweller, lives in a deep
This appears to support what I have always considered an acceptable form of log washing -- namely that if you KNOW you worked the guy correctly and that an error in the log is typographical in nature
Here's a different take on the whole RBN to monitor oneself argument. I think KU8E is correct in pointing out that it is unlikely to alter competitive score at all, however... I believe a single-op u
So, is it laziness that leads to ignoring what was sent? Inability to copy? Or, and this would be hilarious: "Well, he's sending Nanuq but my autofill is saying Rick, so he must be an idiot and just
I'm with Hans. Unless there's compelling evidence the other guy is messing around, or ignoring my request for a fill (note, fill, not ack) there's little reason to be vindictive. But if the guy acks
Surely, if there's been a good-faith effort to get the Q, leave it in the log. But if you know the Q is not complete, and your best efforts to complete it fail, by getting a fill or correcting his er