According to the ARRL Letter of November 13, the ARRL is recommending some changes in VHF/UHF contest rules - recommendations that, if carried, are likely to set a precedent for HF contesting. http:/
I am not an ARRL member so my comments will probably be regarded as superfluous but I shall make them anyway. What is the rationale behind this recommendation? 1 - Everbody cheats. 2 - ARRL thinks th
Bad development indeed for contesting.... If I was ARRL member I would not only raise my voice... I would SHOUT LOUDLY!!! 73 de RM2D, Mats _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest m
VHF/UHF is quite different from HF. Perhaps you don't spend much time there. It has long been common (and good) practice for meteor scatter, moonbounce, and other small signal mode contacts to be sch
You are absolutely correct Paul, this is madness. For almost 30 years I have annualy taken part in the ARRL EME contest, partly because I enjoy the fact that single op is unassisted. Operator skills
I don't like the idea of removing 'assisted' categories, because 'boy-and-his-radio' should be different than 'boy-and-his-radio-and-the-receivers-of-hundreds-of-others'. However, I would point out t
I don't cheat. I don't know how much the proposed rules will impact me, either. I have been a Single-Op (QRP) Portable in most VHF contests for the last 10 years or more. My favorite spot to operate
So Doug, by the same logic do you believe ARRL and perhaps other contest sponsors should remove the distinction between single and multi-op since it is hard for the checkers to tell the difference? M
But if your only concern is cheating between unassisted and assisted that could addressed by the same solution! Therefore no need to combine the categories. 73, Dave G4BUO ___________________________
That can easily be solved. Video/Audio recording for high profile entrants posted to YouTube right after the contest, or even better live video streaming (audio could be delayed a few mins respect to
As far as the facts of cheating with unfair assistance and ghost ops are concerned, yes. 73, Martin, LU5DX _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing list CQ-Contest@contestin
Dave, In my original post, I also pointed out how contest sponsors retain separate categories for the various power levels, even though they cannot actually verify that with 100% (or >x% percent?) of
If cheating on packet/cluster/RBN was such a benefit, wouldn't the assisted classes outperform the unassisted, rather than the other way around? If the guys who are honest about assistance can't beat
Kelly, Anyone who thinks using the RBN or packet spots is an inherent detriment to a single operator is badly mistaken. If assisted scores are not at the level of non assisted it simply means that mo
<snip> Yet, power levels never get anywhere near the level of hand-wringing despite actually being an infraction of actual laws in most countries compared to the overwhelming dread someone might be l
This rules change was recommended by a VHF-UHF advisory committee. It probably will have no bearing on HF contests. VHF+ contesting is not anything like HF contesting. I'm a VHF+ contester. Beam patt
Careful, Zach. Informed argument and proper reasoning have no place in this rant! ;=) 73, kellyve4xt _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing list CQ-Contest@contesting.com
VHF+ contesting is not anything like HF contesting. I completely agree with Zack. Indeed, I posted something quite similar to his on 11/15/14 at 8:58 am. It got ignored in the brohaha about cheating.