Okay, conditions for the CQ 160 SSB have been extremely noisy for many of us along the Eastern Seaboard. Operators have routinely been CQing in the face of several callers, and few seem to be able to
Unfortunately that toothpaste is out of the tube, but the software authors did contesting a terrible wrong when they coded in crutches like auto-fills and super check partial. 73, de Hans, K0KB Sent
Have you ever worked him before? Is it possible he remembers your call from a previous contest, and mistakenly thought you went by Eric not Rick? I have had that happen, where someone calls me by my
Rick, While the guy you worked was obviously assisted, why would you reduce *your* score to get back at him? I'd include your description of what happened with your log submittal and let the contest
Oh, for pity's sake, no this tired old excuse for "logic." By your "logic," any operating aid beyond a certain arbitrary point you seem to have set without really defining it is questionable. Okay, l
Bob, One fly in your otherwise perfect ointment: Rick notes neither he nor the station he worked received the exchange. No QSO. though, otherwise, I'd agree with your sentiment entirely. 73, Kelly ve
Here's a thought...what if this guys was NOT in the contest, and is just a guy handing out contacts? Alot of "us" are far too quick pass judgement on "cheaters"....we have to remember a hell of alot
Hi, Bob Thanks for your input. My score is irrelevant. It was an incomplete contact, plain and simple. I had not copied his info, tried twice to get it, yet he informed me, calling me "Eric" - a name
I totally disagree with this idea. Contesting should be fun and competitive. But contesters should play by the rules, or not at all. Even if assisted, do not put a contact in the log unless you have
Bob, I don't see the slope as slippery nor the boundary arbitrary as you suggest. The aids which I think damaging are those which give you specific elements of the exchange for your log which you did
Amen. I appreciate the input from all who have contacted me directly or posted to the list. I have replied to a few with my perspective on the situation, which falls far short of earthshaking, but I
I have stopped caring who is cheating and how. I play for the fun of a good run. With all the ways to cheat or nearly cheat, the scores cease to matter at all to me. I put aside most automation. I kn
Big Question Do I have a valid contact if I know the information passed (NOT passed ) was incorrect ?? Rex K7QQ Rick, While the guy you worked was obviously assisted, why would you reduce *your* scor
Rick didn't explicitly say he didn't receive the exchange from the other guy and even went on to say: "I don't expect to log more than a few dozen Qs in this event, but his will not be among the ones
Bob, This isn't a case of "get even". Rick never even sent his side of the required contest exchange. The other station acknowledged his (unsent) info and moved on to the next caller. There is no Q
I figure that if you know the other guy hasn't got it right.. it isn't a Q... IF you don't KNOW he doesn't have it right.. and he "QSLs".. you gotta assume he has it right.. therefore the "busted cal
And what part of the CQ160 Rules did this guy really break? "obviously a cheat"? Are you crazy, guys? There comes another witch hunt. People not IDing as often as we like - A Cheat, people using cut
<snip> Nothing wrong in using databases or brain, for god's sake. Really? No difference at all? It seems to me there is a lot wrong with using the internet for real-time remote database lookup while