... All competitive activities, interests and hobbies apply limits on technology, either because the technology is deemed to be inappropriate or because it could change the nature of the activity con
... Not true. SO2R benefits those who, through self-training, acquire the necessary skills. ... Because you don't need much in the way of self-training to benefit from Skimmer. ... Our hobby is based
Yes, anyone can devalue CW by treating it as such. In the same way, Whales are just another fish. A painting is just blobs of oil on canvas. Music is just a bunch of notes (or bits). Music has intrin
Respectfully? I think not. You seem to have missed the point. Of course, all the things you mention cost money. But, having access to SO2R hardware does not make anyone a competent SO2R operator - th
Yes - precisely. How CW is sent is immaterial so long as it is decoded by ear. As Ward N0AX said - "Dealing with automated reception differently than automated transmission is appropriate because onl
Sure they are - but only to those who believe that CW is just another data mode. The rest of us know better. 73, Paul EI5DI _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing list CQ-
"More people" may be a red herring. CQ already has software that provides every entrant with a detailed UBN report. The same QSO database, together with the corresponding spots data, can be used to i
In most competitive activities (running, jumping, lifting, throwing, racing), everyone can see how everyone else is doing. Depending on how well you're doing, this could be an incentive for the other
As a programmer, I try to avoid inconsistency, redundancy or repetition :-) My question is - why MUST the call be part of the exchange when it's already "exchanged" as part of the QSO initiation proc
Agreed. I'm just making the point that, whatever the original rationale, sending the call twice is unnecessary repetition. If the rules said you had to send the call three times, what would you do? I
SS is a contest. Any rule that suggests or requires unnecessary repetition is open to question - regardless of how simple or concise it may appear to be. Is it good to repeat callsigns? Yes, but prob
<snip> It's good to feel "wanted" :-) I am eligible now to play in SS, as is any non-W/VE citizen who has a CEPT licence. My interest in SS was sparked by adding support for it in a contest logger. I
"Ward Silver" replied When posting to cq-contest, I try to be precise, and careful in my choice of words, so that readers will focus on the point I'm trying to make rather than trivia. I've checked t
Tom is correct, the EU and NA sprints require both calls to be sent. I'm sorry for getting that wrong. In the EU Sprint the position of your own call in the exchange lets potential callers know the s
There is no such thing as a "real" report. The ARRL realised that many years ago, and it's why no reports are needed on QSLs for ARRL DX awards. Is it time for the Contest Branch to follow suit? DXer
<snip> A serial. That keeps everyone honest, and forces you to actually copy it. CQWW scoring would stay the same because the software knows the country and zone from the callsign, and a serial would
Following the same (dubious) logic, any non-RF based spotting system, developed by some contesters for some contesters and made available for all contesters, should be instantly and gleefuly adopted
In any competitive human activity, it's usual for the actions of competitors to be subject to public scrutiny. How else can the winners be determined without endless bickering from the losers? This a
A QSO is, at minimum, the two-way exchange and acknowledgement of callsigns. As contesters, we are required to log the calls and the exchange. Any mistake, anywhere in this procedure, means it's not
My perception is that they are cheating. Therefore, according to David, my reality is they are cheating. Should Madoff be dealt with in private? It seems that David believes the general contesting p