Way too complicated. If the goal is to make everyone equal and eliminate any possible skill in finding stations to work, the logging softwares can have a feature added to self spot after two consecut
Randy, There is a lot you are doing for the "sport" that is great work. However, whether we like it or not, we have an unwritten rule that basically says "We may subjectively choose who we "believe"
I preface this by saying that I don't know whether there is objective and absolute proof that TO7A cheated or not. It doesn't sound like it, my "belief or feeling" is that there was not and if, and o
When I looked at the log I estimated less than 100 S&P QSOs total out of more than 8,000 contacts. Did I mess up and there are really over 600? You have the computer skills to say for sure. How many
José, These are exactly my points also. I'm NOT defending Dim as being innocent. My opinion or feeling means nothing and may be a surprise. Instead I am defending everyone's right to not be penalize
Mike, I wish you had told everyone you had information showing or even saying he got caught red handed a long time ago. Do you have some information that says he was caught "red handed"? Everyone el
Try to find an RBN spot for a TF3M on 40 meters on Nov 30. 73...Stan, K5GO Sent from my iPad _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing list CQ-Contest@contesting.com http://l
Very impressive and excellent analysis, José! Stan Sent from my iPad _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing list CQ-Contest@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mail
Yuri, This needed to be said. I doubt Frank was thinking very clearly when he listed anything other than single op entries or entries where the log submission was known to be in Dim's control and did
Dick, I am missing something or may not have been in tune with "what's the most you can do and be within the rules" on this subject in the past. Has it ever been legal in SOAB to have any informatio
This was all clearly predicted during the big Skimmer (code reader) debate seven years ago. It was inevitable that without anything stopping it a CW Contest would become more like an RTTY Contest. T
No, Barry. It's drawing a line to preserve some semblance of skill required to work a CW Contest. Using your thinking, I see no reason to disallow CW Readers in High Speed CW Competitions. Stan, K5GO
Joe, Amateur radio can be a pass time like playing solitaire on a computer. It can be a hobby like building a model airplane....or it can be a game like any sport or activity that may involve more th
Terry, That's just a bad "rule" in my opinion. What could be the purpose of listing an invalid entry in the results? I guess it could be to show whoever got the big award that he really didn't win ex
There should be a rule allowing the software to automatically submit a self spot after you have logged perhaps three QSOs on the same frequency - same rule for everyone. After all, when you call CQ o
Drew, That was a great post! I'm sure that if a survey were conducted using a huge population of hams there would be a very direct correlation between age/year of first license to how strong their op
Making code readers cause you to be in assisted category is a stop measure to total automation. After lunch the other day, my bother who is not a ham and who heard nothing but talk of all this for an
Another take on this.... For those who were required to know CW (send and receive perfectly for a minute at 20 WPM to get an extra class license) CW is their favorite mode by a big margin. For the gr
There sure is a lot of talk about "level playing fields". Are there really those who think we should bring everyone down to the lowest level of station and antennas so we can say we have a level play