forcing u to upload all of ur logs is a stupid move in my opinion
becuz that sends a endless stream of eqsls to stations that
have no interest in getting them .... like me!
why do i need 20 qsls from k7qq each contest season??
or from other domestic contest stns??
i have not uploaded any of my annual 30k plus contest
qsos to eqsl for this very reason ....... i saw eqsl as a great tool to
respond to the constant drone of incoming qsl requests
that follow/plague contesters ........
i want to support the paper chasers in the hobby in exchage for their wking
me in the contests ......... but now it looks like this
can't be done without uploading the logs?
lifes a bitch and then u die!
de w7gg/ai7b/ww7or
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rex Maner" <k7qq@netzero.net>
To: "CQ-CONTEST" <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2002 10:42 PM
Subject: Fw: Re: [CQ-Contest] eQSL change of policy
> Quacks
> I find that in most cases where I have one that isn't correct its is
simply
> a bad time or band in the Log that I uploaded or his log. When U reject
> just put in the time shown in Ur log and if he wants the card he can
obtain
> it that way. I don't even look at the ards that come thru. I respond
when
> I get SASE /$ I have 5 years of cards at the buro that I may get some
day.
> I load logs to e-QSL right after a contest so I don't have to confirm
them.
> The recient chang at e-QSL makes for a bigger job but no BFD. I still am
> tring to work WAS.
>
> Quack
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "ted demopoulos" <kr1g@hotmail.com>
> To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
> Sent: Friday, April 05, 2002 03:10
> Subject: Fwd: Re: [CQ-Contest] eQSL change of policy
>
>
> > Jim,
> >
> > You are not quite right, although close. If the times are off or
something
> > else is wrong (and you probably won't know what, just that you worked
> > P5/KR1G on 160 and the logs have been submitted and you don't have
> credit),
> > you would de *exactly* what you do today - send P5/KR1G's QSL manager,
> > KC1XX, a note saying "man I know I'm in the log can you double check
> > please?" And Matt may find a problem, like your call K1IR was logged
> > correctly on the cheap one-ply toilet paper KR1G used for logging
because
> > his laptop ran erratically on P5 power but copied into the computer log
> > incorrectly.
> >
> > As far as being too strict, blame me!! The biggest strength and reason
for
> > the prestige of the DXCC program is its security - yes, you can scam it.
> > Print your own DL, and G and EA6 and PYOF cards and submit them and
> they'll
> > probably pass. Try that with a P5 or VU7 card and it gets *much* harder.
> > They do catch cheaters quite often I'm told. Any eQSL system MUST be at
> > least as secure! If its too secure and a too much of a hassle (the two
go
> > hand in hand), it can be loosened later. We did consider possible (in
some
> > cases probable) attacks and some of the "features" are designed
especially
> > for them. Yes, I am Paranoid - its my job :)
> >
> > 73
> > Ted KR1G
> >
> > >From: Jim Idelson <k1ir@designet.com>
> > >To: CQ-Contest Post <cq-contest@contesting.com>
> > >Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] eQSL change of policy
> > >
> > >Personally, I think the new ARRL Logbook of the World policy of what we
> can
> > >call "double-blind confirmation" is unnecessarily strict. What's the
> point?
> > >If
> > >you and I want to create a fictitious QSO, we can do it easily. We
submit
> > >the
> > >information from both ends, and it is a QSO. Serious DX stations review
> > >their
> > >logs to ensure QSOs are good. But, if I'm mobile and I work a good one,
> but
> > >I
> > >don't log it, I'm not going to get the confirmation. And, if our clocks
> are
> > >off
> > >by too much - no QSO. If we make an error in filling out the on-line
> QSL -
> > >no
> > >QSO - and no way to track it.
> > >
> > >What do the DXCC Rules say?
> > >
> > >"2. Written Proof: Except in cases where the rules of Section IV apply,
> > >written
> > >proof (e.g. QSL cards) of two-way communication (contacts) must be
> > >submitted
> > >directly to ARRL Headquarters for all DXCC credits claimed . . . .
Staff
> > >may
> > >accept electronic confirmations when procedures to do so are adopted."
> > >
> > >and,
> > >
> > >"4. Confirmation data for two-way communications must include the call
> > >signs of
> > >both stations, the Entity name as shown in the DXCC List, mode, and
date,
> > >time
> > >and band."
> > >
> > >For about 65 years, confirmation in written form from the DX station -
> > >solicited or unsolicited - has been the benchmark. This new
double-blind
> > >confirmation requirement definitely raises the bar for electronic
QSLing.
> > >
> > >It's always a pleasure to get unsolicited QSLs. It would be a pleasure
to
> > >get
> > >them electronically, too. The beauty of a cool QSL design - whether
> printed
> > >or
> > >electronic is a welcome surprise - even if it is not a needed country.
> > >
> > >Don't be fooled. This new QSL policy is really a major change in ARRL
> DXCC
> > >policy. It is now being forced on eQSL in exchange for possible DXCC
> > >accreditation - and it is a giant step in the wrong direction.
> > >
> > >73,
> > >
> > >Jim Idelson K1IR
> > >email k1ir@designet.com
> > >web http://www.designet.com/k1ir
> > >
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >CQ-Contest mailing list
> > >CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> > >http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> >
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
> > http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > CQ-Contest mailing list
> > CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
|