You and I go back altogether too far, Hans. I think they stopped
doing that late in the 1970s, though in those days the only
requirement was that both stations had to have submitted logs - no
cross-checking then.
Regarding the LotW security model, that has always been massive
overkill - now perhaps a little gentle drift in the direction of a
more rational standard could occur. Heck, maybe CQ could start the
ball rolling by accepting cross-checked CQ contest QSOs for its awards.
73, Pete N4ZR
At 10:10 AM 6/17/2009, K0HB wrote:
>>I can hear the screams now about diluting the "integrity" of the
>>awards, but cheating scenarios involving collusion among participants
>>in a contest to fabricate QSOs are pretty far fetched, and should be
>>pretty easy to detect. I suppose people might also point to the loss
>>of revenue by ARRL, particularly for DXCC, but I truly wonder if the
>>awards program is a profit center for them, or more a question of
>>loss mitigation.
>>
>>73, Pete N4ZR
>
>No all that long ago (but in the paper-log era) ARRL did grant DXCC
>credit for contacts in cross-checked logs. Don't know why the
>practice was stopped, perhaps workload (?).
>
>It would take some non-trivial programming resources to implement,
>and given the LoTW "security model", wouldn't likely be transparent
>to log-submitters. Probably a non-starter.
>
>73, de Hans, K0HB
>http://k0hb.spaces.live.com/
>Search my log at http://dx.qsl.net/cgi-bin/logform.cgi?k0hb
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|