QST is actually pretty quick. ARRL DX SSB was in March, and results were
known in early August - 5 months.
73 Rich NN3W
----- Original Message -----
From: "g4mkp" <g4mkp@blueyonder.co.uk>
To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2008 11:37 AM
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Top Ten scores & 3830 postings?
> Blimey, some of you US guys really do want to control everything and have
> everything nailed. For goodness sake, we are just amateurs and it's a
> voluntary reflector. Why get pissed just because someone you did not
> expect,
> gets a top ten finish and you didn't? All the reflector does is to give us
> some idea of how we did in the immediate aftermath of a contest. I know
> that
> it gives me instant gratification that I have a good score. Sadly that
> doesn't last because my final score is never anything like my posted
> score!
>
> Incidentally, how long does it take the CQ and ARRL guys to finalise the
> results prior to publishing them? IOTA results seem to come out only a few
> months after the contest albeit that there are fewer entries than the US
> sponsored contests.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Terry
> G4MKP
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of
> cq-contest-request@contesting.com
> Sent: 31 August 2008 13:09
> To: cq-contest@contesting.com
> Subject: CQ-Contest Digest, Vol 68, Issue 41
>
> Send CQ-Contest mailing list submissions to
> cq-contest@contesting.com
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> cq-contest-request@contesting.com
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> cq-contest-owner@contesting.com
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of CQ-Contest digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Top Ten scores & 3830 postings? (Ron Notarius W3WN)
> 2. Re: CQ WPX CW 2009 & Memorial Day Holiday (Mike Kasrich)
> 3. Re: Top Ten scores & 3830 postings? (Georgens, Tom)
> 4. Re: Top Ten scores & 3830 postings? (Peter Voelpel)
> 5. Re: Top Ten scores & 3830 postings? (Bill Parry)
> 6. Re: Top Ten scores & 3830 postings? (Aldewey@aol.com)
> 7. Re: Top Ten scores & 3830 postings? (Robert Naumann)
> 8. Re: Top Ten scores & 3830 postings? (Kenneth E. Harker)
> 9. Re: Top Ten scores & 3830 postings? (Mark)
> 10. Re: Top Ten scores & 3830 postings? (Barry)
> 11. Re: Top Ten scores & 3830 postings? (Steve London)
> 12. Re: Top Ten scores & 3830 postings? (Randy Thompson K5ZD)
> 13. Re: Top Ten scores & 3830 postings? (Mark Beckwith)
> 14. EU HF 2008 - Logs deadline "REMINDER" (Robert Bajuk)
> 15. Re: Top Ten scores & 3830 postings? (Ken Widelitz)
> 16. Re: Top Ten scores & 3830 postings? (Shelby Summerville)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2008 12:32:45 -0400
> From: "Ron Notarius W3WN" <wn3vaw@verizon.net>
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Top Ten scores & 3830 postings?
> To: "CQ Contest Reflector" <cq-contest@contesting.com>
> Message-ID: <AAEFLHCBNHJIOJKFMKNMKEGBCNAA.wn3vaw@verizon.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> Eric,
>
> Are you saying that reporting to the 3830 reflector should become
> mandatory?
>
> Because otherwise, I don't understand what the problem is.
>
> 73, ron w3wn
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com]On Behalf Of Eric Hall, K9GY
> Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 10:19 PM
> To: CQ Contest Reflector
> Subject: [CQ-Contest] Top Ten scores & 3830 postings?
>
>
> Umm, I looked over the CQ WW CW SOAB-LP results just published.
>
> It appears that THREE stations submitted top ten scores but
> did not report them on the 3830 reflector. I know reporting
> on 3830 is not a requirement BUT if you have a top ten score
> I would think that it would be reported to 3830 !
>
> J88DR, OM5XX, and EA8CW magically appeared in the top ten...
>
> CQ CONTEST!
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2008 11:50:51 -0400
> From: Mike Kasrich <aj9c@indy.rr.com>
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQ WPX CW 2009 & Memorial Day Holiday
> To: Barry <w2up3@verizon.net>
> Cc: "cq-contest@contesting.com" <cq-contest@contesting.com>, "Eric
> Hall, K9GY" <k9gy@sbcglobal.net>
> Message-ID: <48B96C5B.1030703@indy.rr.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
>
> Makes a difference for me. Every year I go to the Indy 500 so cqww cw
> goes bye bye except for every 7th year (or is it sixth?)
>
> aj9c
>
>
> Barry wrote:
>
>>Not sure if holidays make a difference. Is there more US activity in
>>CQWW CW when it doesn't (or does) fall on Thanksgiving?
>>Barry W2UP
>>
>>Eric Hall, K9GY wrote:
>>
>>
>>>FYI...
>>>
>>>The U.S. holiday (Memorial Day) is Mon, May 25th, 2009.
>>>
>>>So that means next year the CQ WPX CW (30-31 May) does
>>>not occur on the holiday...
>>>
>>>I would hope that would increase the U.S. participation
>>>levels?
>>>
>>>CQ CONTEST!
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>CQ-Contest mailing list
>>>CQ-Contest@contesting.com
>>>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>>>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>>No virus found in this incoming message.
>>>Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
>>>Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.6.13/1642 - Release Date:
>>>8/29/2008
> 6:12 PM
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2008 11:16:25 -0700
> From: "Georgens, Tom" <Tom.Georgens@netapp.com>
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Top Ten scores & 3830 postings?
> To: <n2ic@arrl.net>, "CQ Contest Reflector"
> <cq-contest@contesting.com>
> Message-ID:
>
> <273FE88A07F5D445824060902F700344017CD229@SACMVEXC1-PRD.hq.netapp.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> I think it is unfair to question the accuracy or integrity of a log
> solely because the results are not posted on 3830. However, I do
> consider it a breach of contest etiquette. With the long lead-time to
> published results, 3830 has greatly facilitated the ability to get rapid
> feedback on one's performance, albeit preliminary. To not post one's
> score should not diminish a competitor's accomplishment, however, it is
> a dis-service to rest of the competitors and reflects poorly on the
> individual
>
> 73, Tom W2SC
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve London [mailto:n2icarrl@gmail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2008 5:44 AM
> To: CQ Contest Reflector
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Top Ten scores & 3830 postings?
>
> Eric Hall, K9GY wrote:
>> Umm, I looked over the CQ WW CW SOAB-LP results just published.
>
>>
>> It appears that THREE stations submitted top ten scores but did not
>> report them on the 3830 reflector. I know reporting on 3830 is not a
>> requirement BUT if you have a top ten score I would think that it
>> would be reported to 3830 !
>
> This is becoming a more widespread practice. Some folks simply don't
> appreciate the scrutiny of having their 3830-posted score compared with
> their final score.
>
>>
>> J88DR, OM5XX, and EA8CW magically appeared in the top ten...
>
> Too bad. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
>
> 73,
> Steve, N2IC
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2008 20:17:28 +0200
> From: "Peter Voelpel" <df3kv@t-online.de>
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Top Ten scores & 3830 postings?
> To: <CQ-Contest@contesting.com>
> Message-ID: <25587BB16CB34B1686761BE8C4B8F314@ap200>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Nothing is easier then reading a Cabrillo log into a contest programm, at
> the same time the program calulates the claimed score
>
> 73
> Peter
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Steve London
>
> At WRTC-2006, I found it interesting that the log adjudicators were able
> to
> create a "real" claimed score for each competitor within minutes of the
> end
> of the contest using the submitted QSO's in the Cabrillo log.
>
> 73,
> Steve, N2IC
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2008 14:04:10 -0500
> From: "Bill Parry" <bparry@rgv.rr.com>
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Top Ten scores & 3830 postings?
> To: <n2ic@arrl.net>, "'CQ Contest'" <cq-contest@contesting.com>
> Message-ID: <33D86CC1B6C84DBFAE0A6D5174F6FD93@chief>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Steve,
>
> I have noticed the same thing. I always enter my score into 3830, even if
> I
> don't enter my score in the contest. Contests are fun for me regardless of
> my final place in the standings. Sometimes I change my entry from low
> power
> to high power in the contest or decide to check the cluster. I still enter
> my score in 3830 in the closest type of classification that is available.
>
> I suppose that if I assumed that everyone was a cheater, then I might be
> leery about letting folks know my score. They might use that information
> to
> modify their logs. I guess that I am just not of that mind set. When the
> contest is over, I immediately upload the contest into my logging program,
> send the file to LOTW and send the info to 3830. I may or may not send the
> entry in to the contest sponsor, if I do it goes in within the day. I have
> already had all the fun.
>
> Maybe we should remove 5% of the score from logs for each week past the
> contest until deadline! ;-)
>
>
> Bill W5VX
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Steve London
> Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2008 8:37 AM
> To: CQ Contest
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Top Ten scores & 3830 postings?
>
> DL8MBS wrote:
>
>> I wouldn?t go so far to raise bad thoughts against someone not posting
>> to an unofficial body like 3830 - as interesting it is.
>> A claimed scores list at the sponsor?s site after deadline, open logs
>> and the percentage of subtracted points in the final scores list can
>> help for enough disinfection - and this by the really relevant body of
>> each contest - its sponsor.
>
> In the past, the CQWW site has posted only received logs and their
> category,
> not
> claimed scores. The claimed scores posted by the ARRL are taken from the
> CLAIMED-SCORE line of the Cabrillo file. That may be accurate, or not. At
> WRTC-2006, I found it interesting that the log adjudicators were able to
> create
> a "real" claimed score for each competitor within minutes of the end of
> the
> contest using the submitted QSO's in the Cabrillo log.
>
> 73,
> Steve, N2IC
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2008 16:36:32 EDT
> From: Aldewey@aol.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Top Ten scores & 3830 postings?
> To: cq-contest@contesting.com
> Message-ID: <d0f.379d635a.35eb0950@aol.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
>
> I usually always upload my score to 3830 for another reason - regardless
> of
> the score. I like the format of the summary that 3830 generates. When I
> am
>
> done posting, I cut and paste the summary from 3830 into a message which I
> post
> on our local refllector where we all share our experiences in the contest.
> I
> know that the logging programs can generate some of these summaries but I
> have
> always stuggled finding a report format that I like as much as the one
> that
> 3830 generates.
>
> 73,
>
> AL, K0AD
>
>
>
> **************It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find your
> travel
> deal here.
> (http://information.travel.aol.com/deals?ncid=aoltrv00050000000047)
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2008 16:41:56 -0500
> From: "Robert Naumann" <w5ov@w5ov.com>
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Top Ten scores & 3830 postings?
> To: "'CQ Contest'" <cq-contest@contesting.com>
> Message-ID: <73AF83A348744B29AD734FE521B1ADAC@SONYRB42G>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Bill,
>
> I?m just using your comments to stress how important it is for logs to be
> submitted to the contest sponsor even if you don't want to compete for
> anything.
>
> If you don't want to compete, please submit your log as a check log so
> your
> log data can be used to confirm the qsos you made. It makes the log
> checking
> process more accurate if more logs are submitted.
>
> I always submit my logs as a real entry whether I make 2 qsos or 2,000.
>
> 73,
>
> Bob W5OV
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Bill Parry
> Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2008 2:04 PM
> To: n2ic@arrl.net; 'CQ Contest'
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Top Ten scores & 3830 postings?
>
> Steve,
>
> I have noticed the same thing. I always enter my score into 3830, even if
> I
> don't enter my score in the contest. Contests are fun for me regardless of
> my final place in the standings. Sometimes I change my entry from low
> power
> to high power in the contest or decide to check the cluster. I still enter
> my score in 3830 in the closest type of classification that is available.
>
> I suppose that if I assumed that everyone was a cheater, then I might be
> leery about letting folks know my score. They might use that information
> to
> modify their logs. I guess that I am just not of that mind set. When the
> contest is over, I immediately upload the contest into my logging program,
> send the file to LOTW and send the info to 3830. I may or may not send the
> entry in to the contest sponsor, if I do it goes in within the day. I have
> already had all the fun.
>
> Maybe we should remove 5% of the score from logs for each week past the
> contest until deadline! ;-)
>
>
> Bill W5VX
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Steve London
> Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2008 8:37 AM
> To: CQ Contest
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Top Ten scores & 3830 postings?
>
> DL8MBS wrote:
>
>> I wouldn?t go so far to raise bad thoughts against someone not posting
>> to an unofficial body like 3830 - as interesting it is.
>> A claimed scores list at the sponsor?s site after deadline, open logs
>> and the percentage of subtracted points in the final scores list can
>> help for enough disinfection - and this by the really relevant body of
>> each contest - its sponsor.
>
> In the past, the CQWW site has posted only received logs and their
> category,
> not
> claimed scores. The claimed scores posted by the ARRL are taken from the
> CLAIMED-SCORE line of the Cabrillo file. That may be accurate, or not. At
> WRTC-2006, I found it interesting that the log adjudicators were able to
> create
> a "real" claimed score for each competitor within minutes of the end of
> the
> contest using the submitted QSO's in the Cabrillo log.
>
> 73,
> Steve, N2IC
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2008 17:31:22 -0700
> From: "Kenneth E. Harker" <kenharker@kenharker.com>
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Top Ten scores & 3830 postings?
> To: CQ Contest <cq-contest@contesting.com>
> Message-ID: <20080831003122.GE12511@kenharker.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> I know the complaint today is about people who do not post to 3830
> at all, but eventually we'll hear from people who think the post to
> 3830 needs to be done within an hour of the contest ending or something...
>
> I always like to add commentary to my 3830 postings, including listing
> all the gear/antennas/etc. I was using for the contest. I like to go back
> and
> read my own posts from years past to see what I did, how the station I use
> has changed, what mistakes I felt I made, etc. And I like to put those
> comments in my Cabrillo file as SOAPBOXs, and I never, ever post to 3830
> without also taking the time to email in the log at the exact same time (I
> am paranoid about doing one task and forgetting to do the other).
> Sometimes,
> I can't devote enough time to that whole process for several days.
>
> --
> Kenneth E. Harker WM5R
> kenharker@kenharker.com
> http://www.kenharker.com/
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2008 07:18:02 +0200
> From: Mark <pa5mw@home.nl>
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Top Ten scores & 3830 postings?
> To: CQ Contest Reflector <cq-contest@contesting.com>
> Message-ID: <48BA298A.6000700@home.nl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Very much agree here.
> The 3830 list is voluntary and has no offical means.
> Due to general mistrust it now should be regarded as bad behaviour if
> you do not upload your score within xx hours ?
> Bad idea.
>
> 73, Mark
> http://pa5mw.blogspot.com
>
>
>
> Ron Notarius W3WN wrote:
>> Eric,
>>
>> Are you saying that reporting to the 3830 reflector should become
> mandatory?
>>
>> Because otherwise, I don't understand what the problem is.
>>
>> 73, ron w3wn
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2008 12:21:43 +0000
> From: Barry <w2up3@verizon.net>
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Top Ten scores & 3830 postings?
> To: CQ Contest Reflector <cq-contest@contesting.com>
> Message-ID: <48BA8CD7.4040400@verizon.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> The nice thing about 3830 is it's great to see scores and comments while
> the contest is fresh in everyone's mind. By the time results are
> published, it's just a list of numbers that blends in with all the other
> contests that one participated in last year.
>
> One solution is the contest sponsors post the list of high claimed
> scores. If logs are now open, why not claimed scores? Of course, the
> best solution is requiring all logs be submitted shortly after the
> contest ends and have results available within a month. Which major
> contest organizer will be first to accomplish that? DARC maybe?
>
> 73,
> Barry W2UP
>
>
> Mark wrote:
>> Very much agree here.
>> The 3830 list is voluntary and has no offical means.
>> Due to general mistrust it now should be regarded as bad behaviour if
>> you do not upload your score within xx hours ?
>> Bad idea.
>>
>> 73, Mark
>> http://pa5mw.blogspot.com
>>
>>
>>
>> Ron Notarius W3WN wrote:
>>
>>> Eric,
>>>
>>> Are you saying that reporting to the 3830 reflector should become
> mandatory?
>>>
>>> Because otherwise, I don't understand what the problem is.
>>>
>>> 73, ron w3wn
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
>> Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.6.14/1643 - Release Date:
>> 8/30/2008
> 5:18 PM
>>
>>
>
> --
>
> Barry Kutner, W2UP Newtown, PA
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 11
> Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2008 06:45:34 -0600
> From: Steve London <n2icarrl@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Top Ten scores & 3830 postings?
> To: CQ Contest <cq-contest@contesting.com>
> Message-ID: <48BA926E.9080607@arrl.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
>
> Georgens, Tom wrote:
>> I think it is unfair to question the accuracy or integrity of a log
>> solely because the results are not posted on 3830. However, I do
>> consider it a breach of contest etiquette. With the long lead-time to
>> published results, 3830 has greatly facilitated the ability to get rapid
>> feedback on one's performance, albeit preliminary. To not post one's
>> score should not diminish a competitor's accomplishment, however, it is
>> a dis-service to rest of the competitors and reflects poorly on the
>> individual
>>
>> 73, Tom W2SC
>
> I think I am at least partially "to blame" for some people not posting
> scores to
> 3830. A few years ago, I posted to CQ-Contest comparing 3830-posted scores
> to
> the final results. Based on the e-mail I received, some folks didn't like
> their
> score reduction (or category reclassification) being made so public.
>
> I would like to see the log submission robot make its own claimed score
> calculation, and that score posted to the "logs submitted" web site.
> Surely,
>
> that wouldn't be a difficult add-on to the robot processing.
>
> 73,
> Steve, N2IC
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 12
> Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2008 12:50:39 -0000
> From: "Randy Thompson K5ZD" <k5zd@charter.net>
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Top Ten scores & 3830 postings?
> To: "'CQ Contest Reflector'" <cq-contest@contesting.com>
> Message-ID: <379E6998D292499DB45B284E04FAA067@k5zd1>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Which high claimed score should be published?
>
> The score the entrant puts in their Cabrillo file? (some leave this field
> blank and many are very wrong)
>
> -or-
>
> The raw score calculated by the log checking software?
>
> The participants claimed score would be the most fair, but from
> observation
> has the least accuracy or meaning.
>
> The calculated raw score is the most accurate, but opens the possibility
> of
> error rates being calculated and made public.
>
>
> I think the 3830 mailing list does its job perfectly. The people who want
> to contribute their scores right after the contest can do so. Everyone
> gets
> an immediate feedback as to how people did, but we still get to have a
> little bit of mystery of not knowing if there is another big score out
> there.
>
> Randy, K5ZD
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
>> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Barry
>> Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2008 12:22 PM
>> To: CQ Contest Reflector
>> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Top Ten scores & 3830 postings?
>>
>> The nice thing about 3830 is it's great to see scores and
>> comments while the contest is fresh in everyone's mind. By
>> the time results are published, it's just a list of numbers
>> that blends in with all the other contests that one
>> participated in last year.
>>
>> One solution is the contest sponsors post the list of high
>> claimed scores. If logs are now open, why not claimed
>> scores? Of course, the best solution is requiring all logs
>> be submitted shortly after the contest ends and have results
>> available within a month. Which major contest organizer will
>> be first to accomplish that? DARC maybe?
>>
>> 73,
>> Barry W2UP
>>
>>
>> Mark wrote:
>> > Very much agree here.
>> > The 3830 list is voluntary and has no offical means.
>> > Due to general mistrust it now should be regarded as bad
>> behaviour if
>> > you do not upload your score within xx hours ?
>> > Bad idea.
>> >
>> > 73, Mark
>> > http://pa5mw.blogspot.com
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Ron Notarius W3WN wrote:
>> >
>> >> Eric,
>> >>
>> >> Are you saying that reporting to the 3830 reflector should
>> become mandatory?
>> >>
>> >> Because otherwise, I don't understand what the problem is.
>> >>
>> >> 73, ron w3wn
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > CQ-Contest mailing list
>> > CQ-Contest@contesting.com
>> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>> >
>> --------------------------------------------------------------
>> ----------
>> >
>> >
>> > No virus found in this incoming message.
>> > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
>> > Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.6.14/1643 - Release
>> Date: 8/30/2008 5:18 PM
>> >
>> >
>>
>> --
>>
>> Barry Kutner, W2UP Newtown, PA
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 13
> Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2008 07:52:29 -0500
> From: "Mark Beckwith" <n5ot@n5ot.com>
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Top Ten scores & 3830 postings?
> To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
> Message-ID: <DFC52867708B4CF88DE8A8CB9894B222@Vaio>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> reply-type=original
>
> Tom said:
>
>> To not post one's score should not diminish a competitor's
>> accomplishment, however, it is a dis-service to rest of the
>> competitors and reflects poorly on the individual
>
>
> Interesting discussion. Personally I prefer more rules than less,
> competitor-wide expectations should ideally be clear in writing so you
> know
> what you were getting in to before jumping in. Alas contesting is not
> that
> way, and I am certain it never will be. That said, adjust your approach
> and
>
> do what you know full well is expected:
>
> Send in your score to 3830. Do it as fast as you can. Understand that
> the
> longer you wait, the more you will raise eyebrows about your own personal
> integrity. That's just the way it is whether you think it's right or not.
>
> I would temper these comments with "if you're a contender." If you're not
> a
>
> contender, it's less important. Like Bob said, turn your log to the
> sponsor
>
> whether you made 2 or 2000 QSOs. If you made 2 QSOs (i.e. not a
> particularly competitive entry, you got on part-time for fun to work your
> friends, etc) you get a pass on the 3830 part. If you entered seriously,
> and are going to wind up in the top-10, be prepared for a royal, and
> DESERVED razzing if you don't submit to 3830 quickly.
>
> Mark, N5OT
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 14
> Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2008 15:44:37 +0200
> From: "Robert Bajuk" <s57aw@hamradio.si>
> Subject: [CQ-Contest] EU HF 2008 - Logs deadline "REMINDER"
> To: 3830@contesting.com, cq-contest@contesting.com
> Message-ID:
> <a93b89e00808310644o153c085fqa37c12a3254691e9@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Hello EU contesters,
>
> Just to remind you that deadline for EU HFC 2008 logs submission is today,
> Aug 31.
>
> Please check SCC home page if your log is listed as received and under
> apropriate category.
>
> http://lea.hamradio.si/scc/euhf/2008/logs2008.htm
>
> 73 Robert, S57AW
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 15
> Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2008 06:49:15 -0700
> From: "Ken Widelitz" <widelitz@gte.net>
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Top Ten scores & 3830 postings?
> To: "Mark Beckwith" <n5ot@n5ot.com>, <cq-contest@contesting.com>
> Message-ID: <LNBBKMPKENFADHHAMOPIEEINIOAA.widelitz@gte.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
> Hi Mark,
>
> I've got to disagree with you on this one.
>
> How long do I have before you raise your eyebrows at my integrity for a
> belated post to 3830? And why?
>
> What kind of royal razzing would follow?
>
> 73, Ken, K6LA / VY2TT
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 16
> Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2008 10:14:13 -0400
> From: "Shelby Summerville" <k4ww@arrl.net>
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Top Ten scores & 3830 postings?
> To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
> Message-ID: <0131EC9D119E4508BB7C07CDBDF276B0@acer6e395d0925>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> reply-type=original
>
> Mark Beckwith wrote: "Personally I prefer more rules than less,
> competitor-wide expectations should ideally be clear in writing so you
> know
> what you were getting in to before jumping in."
>
> Personally, I would prefer that the indication of SO2R, on 3830, be a
> requirement, rather than an option? That way, I would know exactly with
> whom
>
> I'm competing.
>
> C'Ya, Shelby - K4WW
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
>
> End of CQ-Contest Digest, Vol 68, Issue 41
> ******************************************
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|