Frank, No, it's not prohibited. But as a little pistol, if I may, a few words of advice: Let your team know that if you ask me to QSY for your benefit, and I respectfully decline, don't make an issue
That would be sufficient. But if the reply is "NO" or "LATER" or something like that, let it go. Continuing to ask becomes counterproductive. 73 Or would "PSE QSY 3510" be sufficient? 73, Igor UA9CDC
...and not put 'TEST' in our CQ for those of us who prefer to stay out of the RBN... There are some other key words that would have worked the same way, but Alex has asked me not to talk about CW Ski
You took me too literally Pete, and missed my point. You are operating under the assumption that RBN and spotting is the best way to move contesting forward. What I was driving at is that not everyon
Not to be harsh or unsympathetic, especially for a hard core full blown M/M effort when you're trying to maximize contacts... But if the "point & click" crowd hasn't figured out yet that they have to
Glenn, I wouldn't be too sure of that. The amateurs (I refuse to call them "gentlemen") in question have a lot of enemies. Some of whom are also anti-contest. Just check the forums on QRZ.COM and you
Well, if it's a club station, and there are two transmitters owned by the club running at the same time, and they are both using the same call... how can this NOT be a multi-transmitter operation fro
So what are you saying Bob? Contests have to have special rules for the "elite", and the rest of us minions need not apply? Hans, If you're not in the top 3 in the RDXC, what concern are the rules th
Martin, I think you're missing what I'm driving at. Maybe I'm being too subtle. So let me put it this way: When I choose to participate in a contest, it is for one of two reasons: 1. Casual operating
Not the audio recording stuff again. What's next... 48 hour 360 degree video recordings? And with all due respect... The thought occurs to me that, while some form of cheating or other dishonesty has
I think there's a big difference between changing your power level during a contest... or changing from a MS to SO because the other op couldn't make it, or SO to MS or even MM because another op sho
I disagree in principle with some of these points. The whole point, I thought, of keeping the "cluster users" apart from the "non-cluser users" (I am not going to get into another pointless debate on
IMHO, the problem is that no matter what you do, there never will be anything close to a truly "level playing field." There are too many factors involved; not just distance, but population density, e
Oh. So instead of establishing a relative benchmark so that we can at least try to do an apples-to-apples all-else-being-equal comparison, we're just going to keep guessing and make assumptions that
While I may have been a touch heavy on the sarcasm, I stand by my comments. If we?re going to seriously discuss whether or not a change to a distance based scoring system is a viable and "fairer" opt
There certainly been quite a few interesting discussions the last few days regarding the possibility of adjusting the scoring for future ARRL DX contests. What I find interesting is that one key fact
With all due respect Jeff, I'd check on the activity stats of the Pennsylvania QSO Party before making a statement like that. And on that note, I know people are used to certain contests always falli
Why do we even bother anymore? Nobody trusts the other contesters. Everyone these days seems to be presumed to be guilty of "cheating" -- yes, I know that there are people out there rubber clocking,
I think it's a far stretch to compare the awarding of an award on merit by an organization as being the cause of vast paranoia on behalf of a vocal minority of active amateurs. It is one thing for th
No Ward, you have taken that comment out of context. My overall point was and is that the measures that are being discussed, and sadly accepted by the majority with little or not real thought, are no