Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+Busted\s+calls\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+Busted\s+calls\s*$/: 14 ]

Total 14 documents matching your query.

1. [CQ-Contest] Busted Calls (score: 1): Author: "Kenneth E. Harker" <kenharker@kenharker.com>; Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 15:44:55 -0700; That's basically the same standard as contest log checking. If you bust the other station's call or exchange, but they record all of the QSO details correctly, the other station still gets credit for; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-05/msg00038.html (9,967 bytes)
2. [CQ-Contest] Busted calls (score: 1): Author: k8cc@ix.netcom.com (David A. Pruett); Date: Wed May 5 21:34:20 1999; I'm really amazed at the people criticising log checking. Not to be too anal about it, but its pretty fundamental that if you did not get the QSO information right, then a legitimate contest QSO did; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/1999-05/msg00080.html (8,524 bytes)
3. [CQ-Contest] Busted calls (score: 1): Author: n4bp@bc.seflin.org (Bob Patten); Date: Thu May 6 05:42:17 1999; I love this approach to log checking that ARRL started with Sweepstakes! In the posting of SS results on the "Members Only" web page, I moved up several positions compared to the postings on "3830" b; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/1999-05/msg00083.html (11,203 bytes)
4. [CQ-Contest] Busted calls (score: 1): Author: TOMK5RC@aol.com (TOMK5RC@aol.com); Date: Thu May 6 11:05:15 1999; << I agree 100% with N6TR's position that penalties are required to deter "guessing" >> Agreed, but let's play devil's advocate for a moment. Since technology now allows greater log checking accuracy; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/1999-05/msg00090.html (9,548 bytes)
5. [CQ-Contest] Busted calls (score: 1): Author: ku7y@dri.edu (Ron Stark); Date: Thu May 6 09:16:18 1999; I also like the close checking. Two things seem obvious.... One is that the object is to take and put information to and from the "air" onto paper. This involves several skills, with copying CW being; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/1999-05/msg00094.html (8,791 bytes)
6. [CQ-Contest] Busted calls (score: 1): Author: sdelling@facstaff.wisc.edu (Scott Ellington); Date: Thu May 6 12:18:45 1999; The obvious solution to that to make the exchange unpredictable. I know there is a lot of resistance to changing contest rules, but we just don't operate contests like we did before computers. Scott; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/1999-05/msg00098.html (8,226 bytes)
7. [CQ-Contest] Busted calls (score: 1): Author: k2av@qsl.net (Guy Olinger, K2AV); Date: Thu May 6 17:23:44 1999; Interesting thought, if one could take such a table and memorize it and the correct check data, making the mental comparisons in one's head as the contest goes on... Would that be OK, or just the sam; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/1999-05/msg00101.html (9,284 bytes)
8. [CQ-Contest] Busted calls (score: 1): Author: w9sz@prairienet.org (Zack Widup); Date: Thu May 6 18:27:12 1999; What's to keep someone from getting on and working a few hundred stations in a contest with a nonexistent callsign, just to pull a fast one on everyone? That person obviously wouldn't send in his log; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/1999-05/msg00115.html (9,408 bytes)
9. [CQ-Contest] Busted calls (score: 1): Author: rbowen@iglobal.net (Ralph Bowen); Date: Fri May 7 03:17:11 1999; Anyone ever punch in a O (oh) instead of 0 (zero) when typing in a credit card number or dialing a phone number? Automatic disqualification. 73, Gator N5RZ -- CQ-Contest on WWW: http://www.contesting; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/1999-05/msg00118.html (7,792 bytes)
10. [CQ-Contest] Busted calls (score: 1): Author: k8cc@ix.netcom.com (David A. Pruett); Date: Fri May 7 00:19:58 1999; "Since this is all data I copied (except for a guest op here and there), why would I not use this information to ensure my own copying accuracy in the future?" First of all, I think most would agree; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/1999-05/msg00119.html (8,743 bytes)
11. [CQ-Contest] Busted calls (score: 1): Author: TOMK5RC@aol.com (TOMK5RC@aol.com); Date: Fri May 7 10:30:17 1999; << How can you argue with that? >> I can't. My reply started out saying "let's play devils advocate for a moment." I've been dealing with the "level playing field" issue for 20 years and find that th; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/1999-05/msg00132.html (8,014 bytes)
12. [CQ-Contest] Busted calls (score: 1): Author: k2av@qsl.net (Guy Olinger, K2AV); Date: Fri May 7 15:06:29 1999; Well, yes, but aren't we getting close to the false idea that some magic penalty will solve all the problems of ham contesting. Just isn't possible to catch every cheat, every mistake, or reform ever; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/1999-05/msg00135.html (8,394 bytes)
13. [CQ-Contest] Busted calls (score: 1): Author: va3uz@rac.ca (Yuri Onipko); Date: Mon May 13 17:36:21 2002; First of all, let me thank contest branch of the ARRL (Thanks, Don!!!) for giving us a possibility to review our (and not only ours) mistakes in the SS's. Here are just few extractions from my "UBN":; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2002-05/msg00129.html (6,908 bytes)
14. [CQ-Contest] Busted calls (score: 1): Author: va3uz@rac.ca (Yuri Onipko); Date: Mon May 13 19:58:46 2002; for the Of course, I meant Dan, N1ND. My apologies for the misprint. 73 Yuri; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2002-05/msg00131.html (6,484 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 14
Page: [1]