To: | CQ Contest <cq-contest@contesting.com> |
---|---|
Subject: | Re: [CQ-Contest] A New Perspective [was:WRTC Spot/Log Correlation] |
From: | "Kenneth E. Harker" <kenharker@kenharker.com> |
Date: | Thu, 7 Sep 2006 18:15:30 -0700 |
List-post: | <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com> |
On Thu, Sep 07, 2006 at 03:48:43PM -0700, Radiosporting Fan wrote: > > I'll try framing things another way... > > What if categories (as they are established and > defined by the contest sponsor in today's world) were > *replaced* by requiring stations to reveal the > conditions under which *they* attained the score that > they did? Operators that are inclined to cheat today would still lie about the conditions under which they attained their scores. -- Kenneth E. Harker WM5R kenharker@kenharker.com http://www.kenharker.com/ _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing list CQ-Contest@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest |
Previous by Date: | Re: [CQ-Contest] A New Perspective [was:WRTC Spot/Log Correlation], VE5ZX |
---|---|
Next by Date: | Re: [CQ-Contest] A New Perspective [was:WRTC Spot/Log Correlation], Kelly Taylor |
Previous by Thread: | Re: [CQ-Contest] A New Perspective [was:WRTC Spot/Log Correlation], VE5ZX |
Next by Thread: | Re: [CQ-Contest] A New Perspective [was:WRTC Spot/Log Correlation], Kelly Taylor |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |