While most people agree that using a recording of your operation in a contest to make changes or corrections to your log after a contest is over is not acceptable practice; what is the situation if y
I don't think the issue is so much "when" you do it, but "what" you do. Grooming your log without the pressure of making the next QSO seems to me outside the spirit of the competition. Sitting back
Hans answered: There are "open book tests" and "closed book tests" and I imagine most people think radio contests should be "closed book tests." I certainly would not value a high score as much if I
N7DF said, [snip] For that matter, why should an activity that involves only yourself not be acceptable? In other words, why can't you record the contest operation and use your recording, after the c
just I agree. All major sporting events I know of are like 'closed book tests'. Except for the benefit resulting from any foul or penalty against a competitor, there are no 'instant replays' to corre
The big difference here...if you're logging during the contest you get that one opportunity at getting the information down right. If you use a recording, you could listen to the same QSO 17 times un
With the same disclaimer as Doug (i.e., this is not an official opinion), here's my take on the question: As far as I know, no contest has explicit rules against recording QSOs and reviewing/editing
So in that vain, in a MM, you could a non-operator as a "reviewer". He or she would review the recorded audio for any questionable QSO that was flagged by an op. The op could continue to op and the r
I don't think it is a loop-hole at all. Multi-ops, as far as I know, have ALWAYS had the ability and option to have more than one op per operating frequency. In other words, if N2AA is running on 700
This is common practice in large M/M stations with multiple radios per band. CT even has a "Partner" mode which allows the second-radio op to enter his/her version of the call and have it displayed j
Clearly this discussion has to do more with single operator stations than multi. You could have a dozen operators listening to the frequency verifying information with no thought of cheating. However
I know that the practice that Dick and Doug refer to is commonly done, what I was "suggesting" was the practice of reviewing an audio file during the contest and correcting the log after the Q has be
Man, the angels dancing on the head of a pin must be hysterical after reading this thread... If some Bozo wants to sit there and listen to 48 hours (or whatever) of contest audio to find a NIL in his
Denny, I'm with you on this one but so you don't lose any score and .........to keep from losing your RUN freq when taking a whiz, just use the N1BAA mark P1 portable urinal. . Easily home brewed, al
The hell with the funnel. Just cut the top of the milk jug so it fits. Doug Life is not a spectator sport. --Original Message-- Denny, I'm with you on this one but so you don't lose any score and ...
If it happens in "real time/heat of battle" -- ie., two guys at a M/M listening in parallel headsets and "deciding" seems perfectly acceptable to me. Flagging the QSO for later leisurely playback, re
I agree with Hans. Hands down. The Q is made, and anything after that is, in my opinion, wrong. But, now having said that, what about the old days--when you sat all Monday evening, doing dupe sheets.
Wouldn't using 'Depends' be more efficient & 'eliminate' any off-time(s)? 73. Rick, K6VVA * The Locust _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing list CQ-Contest@contesting.c
There is a simple answer to your question. I've said this before, but apparently the phrase "spirit of the competition" has not fully propagated amongst the group. The idea behind almost every contes
Hopefully using that thing isn't either! Eww... -73 de Mike N3LI - _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing list CQ-Contest@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailma