Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+Clarification\s+from\s+DL1MGB\s*$/: 13 ]

Total 13 documents matching your query.

1. [CQ-Contest] Clarification from DL1MGB (score: 1)
Author: "Christian Janssen DL1MGB" <dl1mgb@wrtc2018.de>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 15:29:04 +0100 (CET)
Hello, after reviewing the discussions and the criticism we received from contesters worldwide, we had an internal discussion and decided the following changes. We will split the Single Operator cate
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2014-12/msg00333.html (7,544 bytes)

2. Re: [CQ-Contest] Clarification from DL1MGB (score: 1)
Author: K4XS via CQ-Contest <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 10:10:27 -0500
I usually operate assisted. Thanks to the committee for listening to the contesters and doing the right thing. K4XS In a message dated 12/18/2014 2:55:10 P.M. Coordinated Universal Tim, dl1mgb@wrtc20
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2014-12/msg00337.html (8,354 bytes)

3. Re: [CQ-Contest] Clarification from DL1MGB (score: 1)
Author: David Siddall <hhamwv@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 11:01:55 -0500
Congratulations for making the change. This measurably enhances the prestige of the WRTC2018 organization and better balances the qualification factors. 73, Dave K3ZJ ________________________________
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2014-12/msg00340.html (9,022 bytes)

4. Re: [CQ-Contest] Clarification from DL1MGB (score: 1)
Author: Gediminas Luinskas <LY3BA@takas.lt>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 20:10:26 +0200
Great! Thanks. Gedas LY9A Hello, after reviewing the discussions and the criticism we received from contesters worldwide, we had an internal discussion and decided the following changes. We will spli
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2014-12/msg00346.html (8,679 bytes)

5. Re: [CQ-Contest] Clarification from DL1MGB (score: 1)
Author: brian coyne <g4odv@yahoo.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 19:46:10 +0000 (UTC)
Chris, As one who criticised your committees decision to merge the assisted and unassisted classes for single ops  on this Forum, I applaud your decision to now reverse that.decision - thank you. Whi
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2014-12/msg00349.html (10,273 bytes)

6. Re: [CQ-Contest] Clarification from DL1MGB (score: 1)
Author: Michael Adams <mda@n1en.org>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 23:51:42 +0000
I realize that the change is described as "final", but I'll offer a thought (since I've managed to be quiet so far). First, it should be noted that I'm probably not going to be in the running for a W
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2014-12/msg00357.html (10,220 bytes)

7. Re: [CQ-Contest] Clarification from DL1MGB (score: 1)
Author: "Martin , LU5DX" <lu5dx@lucg.com.ar>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 23:15:37 -0300
Brian you are probably wrong, First of all there are no solid statistics on cheating. Second, packet abuse is the cheapest way of chesting. Third, you can tell by the red cards in several contests, m
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2014-12/msg00360.html (11,570 bytes)

8. Re: [CQ-Contest] Clarification from DL1MGB (score: 1)
Author: Mats Strandberg <sm6lrr@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 08:19:29 +0300
I also thank Chris and the committee for reconsidering. 0.9 is better than nothing, though I would have wished for 0.8 with reference to the fact that WAE, RDXC and AA already have Assisted as the on
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2014-12/msg00361.html (12,589 bytes)

9. Re: [CQ-Contest] Clarification from DL1MGB (score: 1)
Author: Mats Strandberg <sm6lrr@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 08:45:46 +0300
Martin, I would challenge you and claim that Brian is very correct on his statement about power cheating. You are correct about lack of solid statistics on cheating. The same applies to sports and do
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2014-12/msg00364.html (15,505 bytes)

10. Re: [CQ-Contest] Clarification from DL1MGB (score: 1)
Author: Frank Grossmann <frank@grossmann.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 07:39:49 +0000
Hi Chris, you just made the best part of your previous planning obsolete in my eyes. You dared to do something new. Against the idea of a lot of other people who for whatever reason were trying to ma
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2014-12/msg00365.html (9,371 bytes)

11. Re: [CQ-Contest] Clarification from DL1MGB (score: 1)
Author: 4O3A <4o3a@t-com.me>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 12:58:18 +0100
Dear Chris, nice that you consider our opinions. Intention is not to criticize. On the contrary, we all want to help you to make rules to be as good as possible, and I am sure - it is our common inte
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2014-12/msg00366.html (10,208 bytes)

12. Re: [CQ-Contest] Clarification from DL1MGB (score: 1)
Author: "Martin , LU5DX" <lu5dx@lucg.com.ar>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 12:51:37 -0300
Dear Ranko, Some of us have explained and given our reasons as to why we don't think this change is a step forward. So far, those who believe this is a step forward, mainly state their reason why bei
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2014-12/msg00371.html (12,055 bytes)

13. Re: [CQ-Contest] Clarification from DL1MGB (score: 1)
Author: 4O3A <4o3a@t-com.me>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 18:49:48 +0100
Hi Martin and Frank, I really appreciate different opinions, and will answers you as simple as possible. I do not thing that difference Unassisted vs Assisted is step forward in contesting. It is jus
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2014-12/msg00375.html (14,521 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu