I think I have to agree with your argument as the rules are written, Doug, although I'd bet $100 that the ARRL didn't mean it to be interpreted that way. It just illustrates a point I've tried to mak
Really?? Do you seriously think that makes you "assisted"?? If so, the rule crafters have a much larger and more complex task ahead of them than even I figured. Dave AB7E ____________________________
Actually, I can think of some things considerably worse during a contest than someone not giving their callsign every QSO. Among them would be having a trashy signal more than 5 KHz wide or having so
You just proved my point. There isn't any unambiguous FCC definition of a "communication". Some people obviously interpret that in the context of a contest to mean every contact exchange, but that is
I also do not remember the date of my first license, nor the date when I upgraded to extra and got my current callsign. I haven't a clue where my actual license is, but I suspect it doesn't exist any
I'm all for checklogs, but it seems to me that removing legitimate contacts simply because a casual participant didn't send in his log is a policy problem, not a procedural one. I for one would quest
As I read the message from ON7SS, they don't only remove Uniques for the UBA ... they intend to remove contacts for any callsign that they cannot verify via any other independent database. He specifi
Great points. Can anyone explain to me why checklogs are even allowed anymore? Since uniques are not penalized I don't see how they serve any useful purpose at all. 73, Dave AB7E ____________________
The real point for me is ... if the contest rules specify that logs will be made public, why allow anonymity for anyone who still can affect the scores of others? That may be "no issue for the sponso
Yes, there seems to be a common misconception that the RBN represents signal strength. It doesn't ... it gives signal-to-noise ratio, which is an entirely different thing. 73, Dave AB7E _____________
Fundamentally, the blame for that rests on the running station. Some will answer the offender, and most don't take the time to discipline the crowd. You aren't going to convince LIDs to behave in a m
I guarantee that working him at all encouraged him to do exactly the same thing again to someone else. The way to change the WA3's behavior is to not work him when he calls out of turn. Dave AB7E ___
I'm confused regarding the point here. In what major contest is the use of CW Skimmer allowed for unassisted categories (other than in Blind Mode)? Isn't all of that already covered in the rules? Kin
Hi, Mark. Yes, I am aware of all that, but I still don't think the original comment was actually trying to address a rule issue, particularly becauseeliminating unassisted categories covers a lot mor
Hi, Bob. I pretty much expected to get some "feedback" from that comment, and from my own personal bias I might want to argue the same thing. I was merely trying to illustrate that CW Skimmer isn't r
No, it really isn't that simple. What's the difference between operating together by network versus operating together by physical proximity. If anything, networked collaboration is less work. The on
I think you're missing my point. I'm not saying that having another guy in the shack helping you do anything is not multi-op. I'm pretty certain it is. What I am arguing is that the distinction betwe
There can be several reasons why those things happen. A few obvious possibilities (in or out of a contest are) are: a. QRM/QRN on his end caused the caller to think that you sent his call incorrectly
When I first got my callsign over 35 years ago I expected that to be the case, but in practice I have never found that to be a problem. If the station on the other end only gets part of my callsign,
I hate it when people put extra spaces between characters like that. When the S/N is low with QSB I often rely on pace and rhythm to recreate the other guys callsign in my head. When you send W9E T I