CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] Improper WPX Exchanges

To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Improper WPX Exchanges
From: "AD5VJ Bob" <rtnmi@sbcglobal.net>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 21:21:23 -0500
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
 I am not yet a big gun, still just a little pistol, but I disqualified myself.

My logging software which is N1MM the greatest contest logger I have ever used, 
has a method of making a selection for "spotting all
S&P's. I had this selected but did not check the box for "run" when I started 
my first run. I was working 40 meters only and (for
me) had quiet a pile up going there for a while before I realized I was 
spotting myself every time I logged an entry.

So I decided not to submit a report this year, as soon as I realized what I had 
done, I moved frequencies and put the check in the
'run' box so I wouldn't spot myself again.

Maybe next time I will pay more attention and not do the notorious self 
spotting.

Everyone has to do according to how their own conscious leads them, so I 
decided to disqualify myself. 

Some of you will probably think this stupid of me, but some will I hope also 
agree with my decision.

Hope all had a great time, I know I did.

Thanks for all the contacts, next year I will make sure they count :)

Bob AD5VJ

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com 
> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Dave/KA1NCN
> Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 4:32 AM
> To: cq-contest@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Improper WPX Exchanges
> 
> Why disqualify the big gun?  Every station that works him as 
> the opportunity to demand a signal report.  In fact, they 
> have the duty!  Yet, in listening to a few stations giving 
> serial numbers only this weekend (probably 3 or 4 hours in 
> total), I never heard a single one ask for a signal report.   
>  Secondly, I disagree with the notion that a report is 
> entirely subjective.  The ?S? part, as I understand it, is 
> supposed to be derived from whatever one?s S-meter is 
> reading.  So, at a minimum, a third party, standing over the 
> shoulder of the ?giver? of the report would be able to verify 
> that at a given moment a signal caused a certain S-meter to 
> give a certain reading.
>     73, Dave/KA1NCN dave@ka1n.cn
> 
>        
> ---------------------------------
> Special deal for Yahoo! users & friends - No Cost. Get a 
> month of Blockbuster Total Access now 
> _______________________________________________
> 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>