Received reply: I was kind of surprised going through the rules as there used to be rule against such activity if I recall correctly. Answer: The ARRL has (had?) such a limitation, but not CQWW. Ther
If you want to know "for sure," as the contest sponsor. But generally speaking, self-spotting is a taboo behavior (I think it clearly demonstrates "no class" - pun intended). de Doug KR2Q ___________
http://www.cqww.com/logs-received_ssb.htm During the Q+A portion of a recent PVRC Webinar presentation (CQWW 2009), one questioner requested that the LOGS RECEIVED page include the claimed scores. Th
Those who favor a ban on spotting are typically (but not always) SERIOUS contesters. The problem it at least two-fold. 1. How would this be enforced by the sponsor? They cannot FORCE the clusters to
Just noticed this. RE: SS VFB! de Doug KR2Q [snip] To make this faster turnaround possible, logs must be received at ARRL HQ within 15 days of the end of the contest, not 30 days, as it has been for
Hi... Still lots of time, so this is simply a friendly reminder. It is now the FIRST weekend since the CQWW SSB contest. Please submit your log to: ssb@cqww.com So far (~1100z on 31/10/2009) 3,354 of
At the time of this data, it is exactly 7 days and 2 seconds since the CQWW SSB contest ended. According to the public Logs Received page, 3,670 logs have been submitted so far. http://www.cqww.com/l
Recently, there has been some comment (privately and otherwise) about USA guys being "out of the band" on 40 SSB. Namely, how close to 7125 can you get, not the "ooops" type of split event where you
You guys crack me up. Every year, "oh no, cut numbers." I copy whatever is sent my way. But far worse (IMHO) are those of you who may not "cut your numbers" but cut your words. I was probably 95% S+P
Sounds like a great suggestion to me, Gerry!Doug KR2Q-- Original Message --From: Gerry Hull Date: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 11:07 amSubject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CK, PR, SEC = same as cut numbersTo: k
Well, yes...timing is everything. And not everybody posts to 3830. Speaking of which, as best as I can tell, NEITHER of these logs have yet to be submitted to the sponsor, so really, NEITHER can clai
Random thoughts...... 1. This will have no impact on the number of entrants compared to "before." There has not been a group of potential entrants NOT participating because, "Gosh, they just don't ha
N0HI said: [snip] It is also a wonderful category for people who cannot afford or do not have the space for a second transmitter, filters, antennas, and other associated hardware. It is also a wonder
First, let's talk about how scores are generated: You need QSO's (points) and Mults. DUH? Not really.... QSOs: More QSO's = more points. You always want to be on the band where you can maximize your
While I have not done log-checking for the WPX contest, I have done over 30 years of log checking in CQWW for the Oct, Nov events (public knowledge). I can see zero change in the "log checking abilit
I'm spending way too much time thinking about this, but here goes..... But before I start, I fully acknowledge that having "different" contests (how they work) is part of the fun of contesting. Nobod
Well, this discussion seems to be floundering a bit, so I'll add to the confusion. As we all should know (and many do), there is a difference between RULES (laws) and ethics. Many societies embrace c
Tutorial on "Cut Numbers" Everyone worth their salt already uses some cut numbers: For example, 9 = N (dah-dit) ... as in ... 599 or 5nn. Heck, I even did that as Novice Class....we (almost?) all did
Wow... My old call (if any of you remember) was WB2VYA. I just received an envelope from Frank, WA2VYA, containing, as he put it, "This rare Italian QSL" confirming our WPX qso from March 25, 1978. G
I am speaking as an individual contester...taking OFF my committee hat. [snip] In our humble opinion it's time for a group of stns in Europe to go back using a "normal" output power. Power difference