Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+ARRL\s+DX\s+Contest\s+Multioperator\s+Station\s+Guidelines\s*$/: 49 ]

Total 49 documents matching your query.

41. Re: [CQ-Contest] ARRL DX Contest Multioperator Station Guidelines (score: 1)
Author: Joe <nss@mwt.net>
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2020 08:25:45 -0500
My thought with this spread out operating, Less fun being by yourself, But, less interference from your own other stations, In addition, even tho there is less interference, I bet the final scores wo
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2020-10/msg00166.html (18,695 bytes)

42. Re: [CQ-Contest] ARRL DX Contest Multioperator Station Guidelines (score: 1)
Author: Jim Brown <k9yc@audiosystemsgroup.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2020 13:26:59 -0700
This defies logic! Operators who have stations can "play" at home using their own calls, which gives other contesters more stations to work. I see that as a big plus! What am I missing? It's not the
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2020-10/msg00169.html (12,179 bytes)

43. Re: [CQ-Contest] ARRL DX Contest Multioperator Station Guidelines (score: 1)
Author: "rjairam@gmail.com" <rjairam@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2020 18:34:10 -0400
Mind you - this is not together with the conventional M/M category. This is separate. I think this is where the confusion lies. 73 Ria N2RJ _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2020-10/msg00170.html (12,535 bytes)

44. Re: [CQ-Contest] ARRL DX Contest Multioperator Station Guidelines (score: 1)
Author: Barry W2UP <w2up.co@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2020 17:42:32 -0600
Jim makes good points. By aggregating a number of single ops into a new multi category under one callsign, you're cutting down the number of workable stations. It just doesn't make sense. Why create
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2020-10/msg00171.html (13,923 bytes)

45. Re: [CQ-Contest] ARRL DX Contest Multioperator Station Guidelines (score: 1)
Author: Jeff Clarke <ku8e@ku8e.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2020 20:03:51 -0400
Ria, I don't understand why you are focusing so much on M/M?  They are a very small percentage of the entities in just about every DX contest? Do the rules have to be written to appease them?  M/S an
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2020-10/msg00172.html (13,745 bytes)

46. Re: [CQ-Contest] ARRL DX Contest Multioperator Station Guidelines (score: 1)
Author: "rjairam@gmail.com" <rjairam@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2020 23:04:15 -0400
Quite simply - this rule was meant to allow those who would normally participate in an m/m to socially distance themselves. It's not some sort of weird fetish or obsession. It's an accommodation to a
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2020-10/msg00174.html (15,389 bytes)

47. [CQ-Contest] ARRL DX Contest Multioperator Station Guidelines (score: 1)
Author: K3TN via CQ-Contest <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2020 09:53:42 +0000 (UTC)
The approach does not represent change - sounds like the thought was "Hey, back in 2014 when we did the W1AW/ operations, this approach worked out pretty well." Of course, that wasn't a contest. In 2
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2020-10/msg00177.html (9,540 bytes)

48. Re: [CQ-Contest] ARRL DX Contest Multioperator Station Guidelines (score: 1)
Author: Hans Brakob <kzerohb@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2020 05:58:48 +0000
_______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing list CQ-Contest@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2020-10/msg00178.html (10,897 bytes)

49. Re: [CQ-Contest] ARRL DX Contest Multioperator Station Guidelines (score: 1)
Author: Jeff Clarke <ku8e@ku8e.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2020 12:58:57 -0400
Ria, You are making the assumption that MM operations have the most operators. That's not true. With lockouts, in-band radios on run band and a radio on every band you aren't running on all the time
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2020-10/msg00180.html (16,042 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu