CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] Packet absurdity

To: "John WA2GO" <xnewyorka@hotmail.com>, <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Packet absurdity
From: "Kelly Taylor" <ve4xt@mb.sympatico.ca>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 08:01:52 -0600
List-post: <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
Hi John,

A few answers to your questions:

One does not need to claim assisted to make spots, only to take spots. You
can make spots to your heart's content. As long as you don't receive any
assistance (ie. chase spots), you're free to remain in the unassisted class.
CT and NA (and TR, too, I think) both have formats where as a SO Unassisted,
the programs will still send spots to a TNC, but not receive them.

The packet systems could be easily set up such as you describe. We could
even institute a certificate system, where like filing to LOTW, you would
need to verify your identity and keep a cookie on your computer to make or
take spots from a cluster.

This would not be cheap however. Who would pay for it? Would this be enough
of an issue that DXCluster would fork over for? Do we charge subscriptions?

Even if you could devise a system that would be free, you'd still have to
make the sysop care enough to do it. I don't think that's going to happen,
particularly since as soon as you introduce any hurdles, participation in
the cluster will drop off.

I think this is one of those issues, like "I have operated my station in
accordance with the laws of my country" and "I have observed the
power-output limitations of this class of entry" and "nobody but me operated
this SO entry" that is destined to remain unenforceable.

To butcher an old saying: "God grant me the courage to enforce what I can,
the serenity to accept what I can't and the wisdom to know the difference."

73, kelly
ve4xt

_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

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