And once again, I strongly object to the notion that we be required to
record our operation on the chance that we might be a top competitor. Sorry
Scott, but IMHO, this suggestion creates as many or more problems than it
appears to solve.
This used to be a joke. We used to laugh at people who seemed obsessed on
doing this. Now it's considered standard, and more to the point, you want
to impose it? All in the hopes that it MIGHT help the contest committee
catch a few cheaters?
Sorry. My first priority is investing in better antenna systems. Then I'll
try to improve the operating station. But spending a nickel before that on
an otherwise useless recording gadget that I don't want and otherwise don't
need? Forget it.
-----Original Message-----
From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
[mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com]On Behalf Of Scott Robbins
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 9:13 AM
To: Jim George
Cc: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Get out of jail free card
... that's impossible, though. Some contest logging programs do not output
the
exact frequency information to the log for every contest. Other entrants do
not have rig control hooked to the PC, and some rigs are old enough that
they
don't interface to logging programs.
The RDXC suggests this, but it is not required: "RDXC the committee
urgently
asks participants to specify frequencies (CAT System) on which QSOs were
spent
in log". Key word is "asks", not "requires".
I can't see what difference that would make, anyway. I'm all over the band,
and changing bands, when making QSO's on the second radio.
If we're going to require any of this, we are right back to my original
suggestion from a few weeks ago: require top entrants, by request of the
adjudicators if they feel it is needed, to submit a complete recording of
their
contest operation. This would solve MANY issues, very easily.
Scott W4PA
--- Jim George <n3bb@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Good point. This is a key. It will be important for the contest sponsors
to
> require the frequency of the QSOs be part of the database submitted in the
> Cabrillo files. That should make a "signature" clear. The upcoming RDXC
> does just that.
>
> Jim George N3BB
>
> At 02:03 PM 3/10/2008 -0600, Joe, K8FC wrote:
>
>
> >snip
>
>
>
> > it seems to me that any log
> >submitted by a station using the tactics you have outlined would
obviously
> >show like a sore thumb. Let's say the station was bouncing around using
the
> >skimmer output, the log would show the various frequency transitions in
a
> >short period of time. No way a non-assisted station would be S&P up and
> >down the band and logging qso's one right after another. To me it would
be
> >very obvious. Effective S&P methods deem that you cover the band in a
> >linear fashion as to not miss the possible mults.
> >
> >73's
> >
> >/joe k8fc
>
>
>
______________________________________________________________________
______________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
_______________________________________________
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
|