CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] Another gratuitous SS-CW trick

To: "Steve London" <n2ic@arrl.net>, <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Another gratuitous SS-CW trick
From: "Bob Wruble" <w7gg@comcast.net>
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 18:42:10 -0800
List-post: <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
amen....

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Steve London" <n2ic@arrl.net>
To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 6:57 AM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Another gratuitous SS-CW trick


> So, we're advocating that there should be no rules that can't be detected
or
> enforced ?
>
> Hmmm, we better start with the existing Sweepstakes rules.  Let's
eliminate
> separate awards for the A, B, and Q power classifications.  Transmitter
> power is unenforceable and virtually undetectable. While we're at it,
let's
> lump together the A, B, Q and U entrants - since the use of spotting is
> unenforceable, and, when done "well", undetectable.  Finally, let's put
the
> M class entrants in the same category with A, B, Q and U - after all, how
do
> I know that those A, B, Q, and U entrants didn't have multiple operators ?
>
> Give me a break !
>
> Steve, N2IC
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Dick Green WC1M" <wc1m@msn.com>
> To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
> Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2004 2:40 PM
> Subject: RE: [CQ-Contest] Another gratuitous SS-CW trick
>
>
> Much as I would like to see everyone abide by a uniform set of rules, and
> certain borderline-unethical practices stopped, it doesn't make a lot of
> sense to impose rules where there is no means of detection or enforcement.
> Over the years, we have seen ample proof that the honor system will not
> prevent some individuals from breaking the rules and perhaps gaining an
> undeserved victory. About the best we can do is publish a set of
guidelines
> -- sort of an honor code -- and hope that people will abide.
>
> In the present question, I don't think we need a rule to prevent reception
> before the contest begins. Frankly, I think the unenforceable rule about
not
> listening during breaks should be removed as well. The test of break time
> should be whether or not a transmission was made. Like the "only one
> transmitted signal" rule for SO2R, this is something that can be detected.
> If everyone is allowed to listen during breaks, then the playing field is
> level.
>
> If unenforceable rules are made to satisfy someone's sense of what's
> honorable, those who do not share the same sense of honor will cheat and
get
> away with it. As my Dad used to say, "You can't legislate morality."
>
> 73, Dick WC1M
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>


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

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