Guy. You did it the "hard" way did you? I have been a ham and DXer since 1973
and have always encountered people like you. "You don't know how hard it was
when I was your age. You have no idea how hard it was to work DX back then"
Blah Blah Blah. It was BS then and it is BS now. The only thing that matters is
if one works within the rules of the award or contest in which they compete.
Technology evolves; rules evolve. Perhaps you and your ilk need to do the same.
Look backward if you must. I choose to look in the other direction. Steve
Daniel, NN4T
> On January 15, 2018 at 6:28 PM Guy Olinger K2AV <k2av.guy@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> With apologies to Tree, who has asked that this subject be dropped...
>
> The question of the effect of a remote receiver or receivers has
> already been dealt with by some contest organizers needing clarity and
> consistency using current actual technical possibilities while
> retaining the flavor and character of a contest. Probably the best
> (IMHO) adjustment on remotes is that from Tree and Lew and the
> inimitable BARC in the Stew Perry TBDC.
>
> The first part of their answer simply says remote RX *and* TX is fine,
> and is treated like a very long electronic line from key and headset
> to the station wherever it is. Grid square and possible required
> xxn/callsign signing are from the remote location, which is the point
> of record for scoring, standing, awards, etc.
>
> The second part is that using a local TX the receiver(s) may be
> *entirely* co-located with the TX, or the RX facility may be
> *entirely* sited at a single location 75 km or less from the TX
> location. Using this provision, listening on the TX antenna is not
> permitted during the contest. Although the rule uses the word
> "receiver" in the singular, in their mind it does not preclude use of
> a remote diversity RX, eg, K3 equipped with phase-locked diversity
> subRX.
>
> Please remember that "cheating" with respect to ARRL DXCC has to do
> with *ARRL* rules for same. Arguably some DXCC rules are so lax as to
> be meaningless, but they are the ARRL's rules. It has nothing to do
> with our being irritated or angered by someone who using modern
> technical extensions claims the same status as ourselves when we have
> gotten those numbers the HARD way, digging out countries through the
> urban noise never heard up on those mountain or off-continent remotes.
>
> In the end someone whose status self-image depends on what others do
> is inevitably doomed to anger. There will always, always be a cheat
> among us somewhere. If we must compare, compare ourselves only to the
> most noble examples. Or better yet BE that most noble example, knowing
> God knows even if no one else does, and sleep well at night.
>
> 73, Guy K2AV
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 2:32 PM, Steve Daniel <nn4t@comcast.net> wrote:
> > John, is the use of a remote receiver not allowed for DXCC? I don’t believe
> > it is prohibited. I ask because your use of the word “cheating” suggests
> > that it is. Is that what you are saying? Steve Daniel NN4T
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> >> On Jan 15, 2018, at 12:31 PM, John Randall via Topband
> >> <topband@contesting.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Although I have never chased awards, I too am shocked at how easy it has
> >> become for those so inclined to cheat the system, but not only the system
> >> ,but themselves as well. Ofcourse not everyone will cheat but perhaps what
> >> we should be discussing is how to detect those who do cheat. Perhaps a DIY
> >> written document on how to to do this and what to look out for. This would
> >> be of tremendous help for the new comers to the hobby and also us old
> >> fogeys who have been around for a long time.Technology is a blessing and
> >> also a curse. Perhaps one way to try and get back some control is force
> >> all websdr's to enforce a full amateur call sign to its subscribers and
> >> then to make the dbases available for scrutinity sothat the logs can be
> >> compared to say the DXCC mechanisms. This is just a thought and worth
> >> chewing over or other methods used.
> >> Talking of which, has anyone noticed that the imfamous amaeteur in Spain
> >> has been absent on the bands incl topband.
> >>
> >> 73John - M0ELS
> >> _________________
> >> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
> >
> > _________________
> > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
> _________________
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
_________________
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
|