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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+ETHICS\s*$/: 61 ]

Total 61 documents matching your query.

1. [CQ-Contest] Ethics (score: 1): Author: trogozinskisprint@earthlink.net (Tony Rogozinski); Date: Sun Mar 4 23:25:12 2001; Too bad you didn't get a recording - or did you? On the other hand whose idea was it? Seems like it was probably an arranged deal but hard to prove of course - most cheaters find some sort of grey ar; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2001-03/msg00042.html (7,365 bytes)
2. [CQ-Contest] ETHICS (score: 1): Author: "VK4TI" <vk4ti@wia.org.au>; Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 08:19:35 +1000; During the WPX SSB on forty metres I noticed getting through the european wall was tough from VK...tuning across the band I came across a very strong EU station calling CQ contest for him and an anti; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-03/msg00563.html (6,827 bytes)
3. Re: [CQ-Contest] ETHICS (score: 1): Author: "W0MU Mike Fatchett" <w0mu@w0mu.com>; Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 21:53:58 -0600; That is wrong in many ways assuming these stations were really competing and intend to submit a log. If not there is not much that can be done. (e) All operation must take place from one operating si; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-03/msg00566.html (9,417 bytes)
4. Re: [CQ-Contest] ETHICS (score: 1): Author: "Robert Naumann" <w5ov@w5ov.com>; Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 07:33:42 -0500; While this may be on the fringe of ethical behavior, it certainly is not a way to win a contest. This sort of an informal "net" operation used to be somewhat routine years ago when I was a kid. Those; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-04/msg00001.html (10,158 bytes)
5. Re: [CQ-Contest] ETHICS (score: 1): Author: "W0MU Mike Fatchett" <w0mu@w0mu.com>; Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 09:15:46 -0600; I think we need to address all forms of cheating. I was surprised by the calls of the stations that were doing this. You address what you can. Why has excessive power never been addressed? Simply bec; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-04/msg00009.html (12,061 bytes)
6. Re: [CQ-Contest] ETHICS (score: 1): Author: Doug Renwick <ve5ra@sasktel.net>; Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2009 11:06:46 -0600; Mike, I get the same feeling that integrity is gone. Let me share an example from the last WPX test, although minor, shows a disturbing mindset. A very well known VE contester was running on 20m well; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-04/msg00015.html (8,034 bytes)
7. Re: [CQ-Contest] ETHICS (score: 1): Author: mike l dol dormann <w7dra@juno.com>; Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 10:11:08 -0700; i hae been following the cheating thing for quite a while, and i don't think much can be done in sunset period of our lives about whether we cheat or not. when i was in high school i took only two cl; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-04/msg00016.html (8,266 bytes)
8. Re: [CQ-Contest] ETHICS (score: 1): Author: "Glenn Wyant" <va3dx@sympatico.ca>; Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 14:25:56 -0400; That " might " have been me , I was on 14196.8 After a dozen or so W's had called me and I had wasted time telling them their error, I got tired of that and just make a quick qso. Not my fault they s; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-04/msg00019.html (9,251 bytes)
9. Re: [CQ-Contest] ETHICS (score: 1): Author: Gary McAdams <g.m.mcadams@comcast.net>; Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2009 12:41:05 -0700; Glen, 14.196 is not out of US allocations. 14.147 maybe but not .196 Unless the caller is not an Extra or Advanced. Yeah I know, our band slices for various licensees are very confusing, even to us,; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-04/msg00021.html (10,046 bytes)
10. Re: [CQ-Contest] ETHICS (score: 1): Author: "Glenn Wyant" <va3dx@sympatico.ca>; Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 17:32:21 -0400; Sorry that should have been 14146.8 _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing list CQ-Contest@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-04/msg00023.html (8,264 bytes)
11. Re: [CQ-Contest] ETHICS (score: 1): Author: VR2BrettGraham <vr2bg@harts.org.hk>; Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 11:34:36 +0000; What I find interesting about this discussion is how apparently nobody seemed to notice that this list was used to solicit & receive input for some potential post-contest log massaging just a little; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-04/msg00035.html (8,356 bytes)
12. Re: [CQ-Contest] ETHICS (score: 1): Author: Michael Coslo <mjc5@psu.edu>; Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 09:46:29 -0400; Despite all claims, I have to suspect that integrity has always been an issue. Who was it that said, "Don't attribute to malice that which can easily be explained by stupidity"? In the middle of comp; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-04/msg00037.html (9,309 bytes)
13. Re: [CQ-Contest] ETHICS (score: 1): Author: "K0HB" <kzerohb@gmail.com>; Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 10:58:54 -0500; Despite all claims, I have to suspect that the "integrity" issue is wildly overblown, but it gives something salacious for people to gossip about when the sunspots are in short supply. 73, de Hans,; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-04/msg00043.html (8,277 bytes)
14. Re: [CQ-Contest] ETHICS (score: 1): Author: Chad WE9V <chad.we9v@gmail.com>; Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 11:04:32 -0500; This brings up an interesting point. Is it really the VE's responsibility to know that every answer to his CQs is within their band or license class? Sure, this example is a little easier, knowing th; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-04/msg00044.html (9,638 bytes)
15. Re: [CQ-Contest] ETHICS (score: 1): Author: Tom Haavisto <kamham69@gmail.com>; Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 12:36:23 -0400; Wasn't me, but I have had something similar happen. A few weeks ago, I was around 14.125 - well below the U.S. phone allocation, and I was there on purpose - trying to run Europe. W_XXX calls. I tell; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-04/msg00046.html (10,386 bytes)
16. [CQ-Contest] ETHICS (score: 1): Author: Doug Renwick <ve5ra@sasktel.net>; Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 10:39:09 -0600; I got a number of personal responses basically telling me that the act of working US stations outside the US band should be an accepted practice. I believe that breaks the contest rules for any US st; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-04/msg00047.html (7,682 bytes)
17. Re: [CQ-Contest] ETHICS (score: 1): Author: "Yuri Onipko" <ve3dz@primus.ca>; Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 13:58:39 -0400; Exactly my point, Chad. I am operating the Contest, not enforcing the other countries rules and regulations. I would leave it for the appropriate people. Yuri VE3DZ __________________________________; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-04/msg00048.html (9,323 bytes)
18. Re: [CQ-Contest] ETHICS (score: 1): Author: "K0HB" <kzerohb@gmail.com>; Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 13:49:38 -0500; Tom, Each station is responsible for keeping their own operation completely legal, and we have to assume that the other stations we work are doing the same thing. Further, we must assume that the co; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-04/msg00049.html (9,575 bytes)
19. Re: [CQ-Contest] ETHICS (score: 1): Author: "Don Cassel" <ve3xd@rogers.com>; Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 14:32:51 -0400; I agree. It's not uncommon to be called by a U.S. station when running below 14150. My responsibility is to be sure I am operating within the bounds of my license not to check whether anyone else is.; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-04/msg00050.html (9,063 bytes)
20. Re: [CQ-Contest] ETHICS (score: 1): Author: "David Kopacz" <david.kopacz@aspwebhosting.com>; Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 15:03:20 -0500; I believe there are two flaws in this discussion. 1) Many are comparing apples to oranges 2) Many are losing sight of the subject, ETHICS Please allow me to elaborate. KNOWINGLY working a another sta; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-04/msg00051.html (10,976 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2] [3] [4]