Clearly this discussion has to do more with single operator stations
than multi. You could have a dozen operators listening to the frequency
verifying information with no thought of cheating. However the question
of recording contacts and listening to them after the QSO is over can
still be debated, although there is probably not 3% to be gained.
In practice, I doubt that many have enough good operators who are
willing to devote their time to listening to recorded contacts and
making corrections during the contest. Those extra guys are probably
better off working on antennas in their spare time. 3 dB is better than
3% :-)
Mistakes can be caught by operators who are not even on the same band
and corrected in the networked log, and I don't see a problem with that.
For example in the software we have been using if you pull in a packet
spot it brings in the callsign and fills the zone. If it was a bad spot
or you didn't work him and then wipe the field, it leaves the zone,
unless you specifically overwrite it.
The next contact will possibly be logged with the incorrect zone and
several people will be all over it when they see a G logged as Zone 8.
Personally I also do not see a problem if HK0T was logged, and it was
later corrected (even in the single operator category) after 5K0T was
worked on several other bands.
Stan, K5GO
----- Original Message -----
From: <kr2q@optimum.net>
To: <k1ep.list@gmail.com>
Cc: <cq-contest@contesting.com>; <wc1m@msn.com>
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 11:00 AM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] self help during contest
>I don't think it is a loop-hole at all. Multi-ops, as far as I know,
>have ALWAYS had the
> ability and option to have more than one op per operating frequency.
> In other words,
> if N2AA is running on 7001, it was not uncommon to have two ops
> listening to 7001.
>
> I know that I did that when I was M/M. It was not uncommon for each
> of the two ops to
> either share the callsign that "they" copied (and it was always
> amazing to me how two
> guys would copy separate stations), or they could "help" each other to
> get a single callsign
> right. When the pile up is that big, there are plenty of calls to
> copy and having two heads
> copying just keeps things boiling at a higher rate.
>
> I haven't done M/M in about 20 years, but isn't this still a
> reasonable practice for multi-ops?
>
> de Doug KR2Q
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Ed K1EP
> Date: Monday, December 8, 2008 11:39 am
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] self help during contest
> To: wc1m@msn.com, kr2q@optimum.net, cq-contest@contesting.com
>
>> So in that vain, in a MM, you could a non-operator as a
>> "reviewer". He or she would review the recorded audio for any
>> questionable QSO that was flagged by an op. The op could
>> continue to
>> op and the reviewer would make any corrections to the log. As
>> long
>> as it takes place during the 48 hours, it would be legal. I am
>> NOT
>> suggesting this be done, but it is a "loophole" within the rules.
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|