I ran into this quite a bit with the 1K, K and KW guys. I heard operators
saying all three, and more common was K and KW being sent by the same
operator. I noticed that with some multiop stations there were
inconsistencies with some operators sending K and some sending KW. My guess
is that when they submit their logs, there will be no notes about what
exchange was sent with which QSO. Let us hope that the contest committee
makes a sensible ruling about this. Good luck.
Alan, KO7X
-----Original Message-----
From: Hans K0HB [SMTP:k0hb@uswest.net]
Sent: Monday, March 08, 1999 9:36 AM
To: cq-contest@contesting.com; ct-user@contesting.com
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Re: Sending the wrong exchange
N2BIM said:
> I ran into this too. First QSO he sent 100, and the next time
> I ran into him, he said 99. When I asked him about it, he
> said "I guess I lost a watt someplace." I wonder what our
> new software will do about this?
The perverse streak in me likes this idea! Nothing in the rules
says
you need to use the same power every QSO. So long as you log it
right,
I'd recommend using a different random amount of power for each
contact.
Hopefully the checking software will crosscheck log-against-log, and
defeat those who use "fill it in from last QSO" logging techniques.
Behold, a new age! Contesters who can copy an exchange!
73, de Hans, K0HB
--
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST@contesting.com
>From Ron Stordahl" <ron.stordahl@digikey.com Mon Mar 8 17:21:09 1999
From: Ron Stordahl" <ron.stordahl@digikey.com (Ron Stordahl)
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Re: [ct-user] Supercheck-partial?
Message-ID: <99Mar8.112424cst.27783@gatekeeper.digikey.com>
-----Original Message-----
From: Hans Brakob <k0hb@uswest.net>
>
>Does anyone besides me think that the contest logging program should do
>recordkeeping tasks such record your log, tally up the score, and handle
>the post-contest paperwork...
>
>...but that it should *not* provide help on call signs
>(supercheck-partial), remember the exchange from another band and "fill
>in the blanks", and other similar "aids to copying"?
>
>73, Hans, K0HB
Hans
If you can generate enough enthusiasm for a logging program with restricted
features as you describe, perhaps someone will step forward and design one.
But what would you like to eliminate? Obviously Supercheck-Partial, but is
dupe checking OK? Packet cluster interface? Automatic sending of CW or
voice by DVP? Give us an idea of what is to be eliminated.
Ron N5IN
--
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST@contesting.com
|