Gents,
Is it really fair to allow the "unclaimed" QSOs in principle?
An example: you and your competitor decided to jump and check another band.
The band is dead but you found and worked eachother. And that's it... There
is mobody around.
Now you decide to QSY back and mark the contact just made, unclaimed. You
are back and regain a nice run.
In the meantime your competitor strictly follows the contest rules. He keeps
silence for some 10 minutes and only then he is back to run on a "good"
band.
There is something wrong in that, no?
73,
Vladimir VE3IAE
---
> Good question, I would like to know that too. The revision history
> (http://www.kkn.net/~trey/cabrillo/updates.txt) mentions a request to
> support unclaimed QSOs but it looks like is not part of the current specs:
>
> "2002-10-15 Unclaimed QSO support requested by DL6RAI and DL8WPX/YB1AQS
but
> deferred until XML version of Cabrillo."
>
> We are not talking about the "feature" of unclaiming QSOs in one of the
> loggers are we?
>
> 73,
> Julio VE3FH
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Robbins K1TTT" <k1ttt@arrl.net>
> To: "reflector cq-contest" <CQ-Contest@contesting.com>
> Sent: Wed 26-Jul-2006 18:28
> Subject: [CQ-Contest] Cheating by M/S - 3 QSO "penalty" by K3BU
>
>
> > How do you 'zero point' a contact in a Cabrillo log?
> >
> >
> > David Robbins K1TTT
> > e-mail: mailto:k1ttt@arrl.net
> > web: http://www.k1ttt.net
> > AR-Cluster node: 145.69MHz or telnet://dxc.k1ttt.net
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com [mailto:cq-contest-
> > > bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Gord Kosmenko
> > > Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 18:22
> > > To: cq-contest@contesting.com
> > > Subject: [CQ-Contest] Cheating by M/S - 3 QSO "penalty" by K3BU
> > >
> > >
> > > There is a solution or fix to this situation, as an active M/S we
> practice
> > > the following,
> > > if the op violates the 10 minute rule by working any station, we "zero
> > > point" the QSO.
> > > The contact still reminds in the log - for log checking purposes.
> > > Especially for the
> > > other guy not to get a "not-in-the-log" action by the checkers.
> > >
> > > There are solutions to many of the logging problems discussed lately
> which
> > > can be
> > > solved or handled by operator contest knowledge, experience and
> expertise.
> > >
> > > 73, Gord VE6SV
> > >
> > >
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|