category. #3 is mostly tongue sort-of in cheek. 1. If it's OK to use "call history" files, is it OK to look up states in the (on-line) callbook. Why should one list of historical data be OK, and the
1. IMHO, the callsign history feature -- assuming you use only the data you have accumulated -- is okay. I don't see that as very different from going to Dayton every year and getting to know a lot o
1. If it's OK to use "call history" files, is it OK to look up states in the (on-line) callbook. Why should one list of historical data be OK, and the other not? (I did NOT look up anybody's state or
Using callbook names also can backfire... Some of us do not use our "legal" names. Some change things up just to keep folks honest or is it just to make it interesting? ;o) 73, Jul? Julius Fazekas N2
Looking for Rhode Island"? A Rhode Island station calls that has to be ok IMHO but I would guess that if someone came on freq and said there is a RI up 5 that would put me assisted or multi. Right?
How productive is calling for a specific multiplier? I'm thinking not very or everyone would be doing it... As to the later, it would depend on how you acted on that information, wouldn't it? Julius
This IS a good question! For even when I'm in a test going for the best score possible, (I'll never get a "WIN" anymore due to the nature of my station now) But anyway, I always have in the past, hav
Jul/Julius is correct. A practice that seems especially prevalent among non-US/VE stations is to set up the logging software to do an online lookup and insert whatever appears as your given name on y
Unfortunately, selective calling can lead to all kinds of single-op issues, such as... "Hey Dick, a Rhode Island station is on 14210" and innocent DX spots, made by others, like: DX de W2XYZ: 14320.0
Maybe I'm in the minority here, but I figure that information learned on the air as an incidental part of operating the 'test doesn't put me in an Assisted category. Especially working S&P in a conte
How productive is calling for a specific multiplier? I'm thinking not very or everyone would be doing it... As to the later, it would depend on how you acted on that information, wouldn't it? Mike W0
Unfortunately, selective calling can lead to all kinds of single-op issues, such as... "Hey Dick, a Rhode Island station is on 14210" and innocent DX spots, made by others, like: DX de W2XYZ: 14320.0
Well, with all due respect to my fellow SS QST author Steve, I think it might be unreasonable to impose on operators a duty to control what others may do. To take Steve's example a step further, what
Rick Lindquist, WW3DE wrote; "Regarding post-contest log checking, I don't feel it's "cheating" to proofread all the entries looking for typos and the like - entering "O" when I really meant to enter
Even that backfires Eric. As you mentioned with RTTY, in a recent contest I had someone send "Thanks Don GL xxxxx" Don? I would have worried about the validity of the QSO, but he was solid copy. What
Bzzzzt. A well-known, multi-year SS winner did exactly this a few years ago, looking for a VE8/VY1. It took about 2 minutes before one of his cheerleaders told him where to find VY1. He QSY'd, easily
It does pay to not rely too much on data bases, whether electronic or neuronic. In the September CW Sprint, five guys (out of my 120 qsos) logged me in Ohio. Unfortunately they lost the qso because I
I'm with Lindquist on this one: ham radio contests aren't typing class. Never were, never should be. As long as it's an honest typo, where it's clear that the operator did indeed copy correctly but m
What concerns me is why are these instances not published or discussed more openly for the rest of the community? It appears from my chair that this type of information is only shared with a select g
It remains a complete mystery to me why it is improper for me DURING THE CONTEST to call " CQ RI" or "CQ NT" as a single operator, but perfectly proper to use crutches like "super check partial" whic