CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] AO8HQ vs DA0HQ - ARRL did the worse in two decisions

To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] AO8HQ vs DA0HQ - ARRL did the worse in two decisions
From: David Gilbert <xdavid@cis-broadband.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 10:53:25 -0700
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
I also like the "distributed multi-multi" concept, and my first reaction 
to the problem was also simply to give zero points for same country 
QSOs, even though it would of course be to the detriment of stations 
like W1AW that can't count on round-the-clock propagation to DX on all 
bands.    But then it occurred to me .... if the offending DLs were 
dishonest enough to make hundreds of QSOs using other DL callsigns, what 
would prevent them from simply making those same bogus QSOs with DA0HQ 
using Italian or Spanish callsigns?  I don't think there is any 
difference in the degree of illegality ... a pirate is a pirate.

Even putting a limit on the number of uniques in the HQ logs (for 
scoring, not for disqualification) wouldn't solve anything.  It is 
pretty obvious that the DA0HQ support base is pretty organized, and all 
it would take is for two or three of the offenders to use the same list 
of callsigns.  I could pretty easily come up with a list of callsigns 
from the SCP database that have never appeared as submitted logs for the 
IARU contest.

In any case, the ARRL certainly chose the weakest possible response to 
the issue and I find that very disappointing.

73,
Dave   AB7E


>   
> .>  >  I've participated in three ARRL HQ (W1AW/x) operations. I'd
> REALLY hate to see the>  "distributed multi-multi" feature of this
> contest go away. I>  don't remember how our operations placed.. I know we
> didn't win.. but the fact is, it>  was just plain **FUN**. Hopefully that's 
> why
> most of us are>  contesting.>  >  (I rather like the way the
> ARRL HQ operation "floats" around the country, giving the>
> contesters of different regions the opportunity to experience>  this 
> operation.
> Admittedly, that's probably not practical for most IARU Societies.)>  >  If 
> same-country "cheerleaders" are an issue, maybe the best answer is
> to simply provide>  that QSOs between HQ stations and other stations in the
> same>  country don't count?>  >  -- >  >  Doug
> Smith W9WI>  Pleasant View, TN EM66>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>