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.

41. Re: [CQ-Contest] Ethics (score: 1): Author: "David Levine" <david@levinecentral.com>; Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 08:08:51 -0400; Just referencing your one snippet: And contrary to the statement made earlier by someone that this is a 0.1% problem. It absolutely is not. I hear dozens of out of band Qs every contest on 40M as sta; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-04/msg00081.html (10,234 bytes)
42. Re: [CQ-Contest] ETHICS (score: 1): Author: Michael Coslo <mjc5@psu.edu>; Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 09:20:07 -0400; ARRL and the F.C.C. have an Official Observer Program which is designed to deal with this very thing. It depends upon concerned Hams to listen and give feedback to the Amateur who may be doing someth; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-04/msg00083.html (9,938 bytes)
43. Re: [CQ-Contest] Ethics (score: 1): Author: "W0MU Mike Fatchett" <w0mu@w0mu.com>; Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 07:32:10 -0600; Calling out of band does not a contact make. Yes lots of people screw up and call out of band. I have done it and probably will do it again. I have yet to work the DX as they were listening elsewhere; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-04/msg00086.html (10,043 bytes)
44. Re: [CQ-Contest] ETHICS (score: 1): Author: kd4d@comcast.net; Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 13:46:44 +0000 (UTC); Hi Dick: An interesting point, but I don't agree: "If, in the heat of battle and the depths of fatigue you accidentally make an illegal contact, don't log it." This triggers a NIL in the log checking; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-04/msg00087.html (17,524 bytes)
45. Re: [CQ-Contest] ETHICS (score: 1): Author: kd4d@comcast.net; Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 13:58:45 +0000 (UTC); Hi Dick: Thanks for sending me back to the regulations - always a fun thing. I wondered if I had missed a change, but I think not. I don't think this is quite correct: "In other words, you can't tell; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-04/msg00088.html (13,731 bytes)
46. Re: [CQ-Contest] Ethics (score: 1): Author: "Dick Green WC1M" <wc1m@msn.com>; Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 10:08:04 -0400; Actually, I was thinking about sponsors using observers during the contest to spot participants transmitting out of band. I don't know whether sponsors use observers on a regular basis, or how they m; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-04/msg00089.html (11,093 bytes)
47. Re: [CQ-Contest] ETHICS (score: 1): Author: "Dick Green WC1M" <wc1m@msn.com>; Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 10:23:05 -0400; Oops. I missed that (and I looked for it.) Do you know if that was added sometime in the last 25 years? I could have sworn there was a time when the FCC didn't require the control op's call to be inc; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-04/msg00090.html (16,517 bytes)
48. Re: [CQ-Contest] ETHICS (score: 1): Author: Gary McAdams <g.m.mcadams@comcast.net>; Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 07:33:43 -0700; Fellows, This stuff really gets out of hand doesn't it? I don't understand where the "ethics" part comes from, especially if we ware talking about the "called" station. How anyone in the excitement o; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-04/msg00091.html (9,885 bytes)
49. Re: [CQ-Contest] ETHICS (score: 1): Author: "W0MU Mike Fatchett" <w0mu@w0mu.com>; Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 10:33:28 -0600; Understood. I am not and OO. The OO sends a notice of and that generally is the end of his or her involvement. In more serious infractions, the OO can refer the matter up the OO food chain. We are no; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-04/msg00095.html (11,257 bytes)
50. Re: [CQ-Contest] ETHICS (score: 1): Author: Michael Coslo <mjc5@psu.edu>; Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 13:26:42 -0400; Agreed, I suspect that most people who are operating out of band will be embarrassed by it, and avoid doing it again. Perhaps the out of band issue might be better handled under sloppy practices as o; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-04/msg00097.html (10,598 bytes)
51. Re: [CQ-Contest] Ethics (score: 1): Author: John Laney <k4bai@worldnet.att.net>; Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 13:24:55 -0400; Wait a minute! All the logging programs I am familiar with log the frequency of the receiver at the time that the "enter" command is given. Or maybe more accurately, it records the frequency of the m; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-04/msg00098.html (13,771 bytes)
52. Re: [CQ-Contest] ETHICS (score: 1): Author: John Laney <k4bai@worldnet.att.net>; Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 13:31:49 -0400; A few "serious contesters" have been, for one reason or another, unable to pass the Extra class exams, even with no code requirement. Some of you may remember that, after incentive licensing, the fam; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-04/msg00099.html (18,501 bytes)
53. Re: [CQ-Contest] ETHICS (score: 1): Author: Michael Keane K1MK <k1mk@alum.mit.edu>; Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 15:44:16 -0400; That's been the ID requirement since Oct 1972. The rule originally read in part "... when a station is operated within the privileges of the operator's class of license but which exceeds those of the; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-04/msg00100.html (11,607 bytes)
54. Re: [CQ-Contest] ETHICS (score: 1): Author: "Dick Green WC1M" <wc1m@msn.com>; Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 15:50:17 -0400; I was directing my comment to the innocent VE who inadvertently participates in an illegal contact initiated by a US station transmitting out of band. I think the VE, if he/she knows the contact is i; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-04/msg00101.html (22,102 bytes)
55. Re: [CQ-Contest] ETHICS (score: 1): Author: "Dick Green WC1M" <wc1m@msn.com>; Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 16:09:39 -0400; Right. Having never heard a double call sign ID, I would guess either it's exceedingly rare for a regular contest station licensee to have less than Extra class privileges, or people don't know the; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-04/msg00102.html (9,778 bytes)
56. Re: [CQ-Contest] ETHICS (score: 1): Author: Michael Keane K1MK <k1mk@alum.mit.edu>; Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 17:16:51 -0400; I don't see that rule as ambiguous; I see it as common sense. If you don't want to accept all of the responsibly for anything that might go wrong when you allow someone else to operate using your cal; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-04/msg00103.html (8,871 bytes)
57. Re: [CQ-Contest] Ethics (score: 1): Author: Oliver Dröse <droese@necg.de>; Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2009 00:02:25 +0200; Dick, this is no solution either. Becaus what's in the log not neccessarily shows where you transmitted. I.e. I'm as a European am working split with the US on 40 m. Let's assume I work somebody who'; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-04/msg00104.html (9,718 bytes)
58. Re: [CQ-Contest] ETHICS (score: 1): Author: VR2BrettGraham <vr2bg@harts.org.hk>; Date: Sat, 04 Apr 2009 12:23:53 +0000; Brain got way ahead of fingers previously, let me finish & continue with two other examples from right here on cq-contest. I suggest reading my previous post (repeated below) before continuing. It ap; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-04/msg00107.html (11,925 bytes)
59. Re: [CQ-Contest] ETHICS (score: 1): Author: Joe <nss@mwt.net>; Date: Sat, 04 Apr 2009 10:48:28 -0500; But in this case at least in the old days if the control op exceeds the stations licence they have to add their call to the sign? Like say K9XX ifs a general and I operate in the extra band shouldnt; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-04/msg00113.html (20,500 bytes)
60. Re: [CQ-Contest] ETHICS (score: 1): Author: "Robert Chudek - K0RC" <k0rc@citlink.net>; Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2009 11:50:15 -0500; "What I am sure of is that if I'm the only one who sees this, then we have a bit of a problem, as then the issue isn't even seen as an issue. It certainly goes a long ways towards explaining to me wh; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-04/msg00114.html (16,917 bytes)

Current List: 41 - 60
Page: [1] [2] [3] [4]