[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] CQ WW Survey Results - part 2

To: cq-contest <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQ WW Survey Results - part 2
From: Kelly Taylor <ve4xt@mymts.net>
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 12:26:47 -0600
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
Why not change the justice system while we’re at it. Most people charged are 
guilty, so let’s dispense with due process… ;=)

If you can prove a bust, remove it. If you can’t prove a bust, you can’t prove 
the guy didn’t work the station in question. There’s one member of Radiosport 
Manitoba who is so high up on the DXCC Honor Roll, and is primarily interested 
in working them all, that unless it’s a P5, he’s unlikely to bat an eye toward 
the radio in a DX contest. (He might need one other entity, I can’t recall.) He 
will most likely NOT be in ANY OTHER log submitted to organizers.

So it’s very likely that an operator such as he would turn on the radio, find 
the P5, work him and then shut down. In a contest such as WW, losing one Zone 4 
NA station in Canada is not a big deal. But in a contest such as ARRL DX, that 
one VE4 might be the difference between a sweep or not of ARRL sections. Is it 
fair to punish stations who may legitimately work stations for whom they are 
their only contacts, just because “most unique calls are copying errors?”

At the highest levels of category or regional competitions, is it out of the 
question to contact the “unique” and ask? Isn’t that how UT5UGR got caught?

For the rest of the field, outside the Top 10 and regional Top 10 boxes, unless 
a station has an inordinate number of uniques worthy of additional examination, 
is it really a big deal?

And, if it’s true that “most unique calls are copying errors,” isn’t it likely 
stations will receive heavy enough penalties on provable busts that uniques are 
a small problem anyway?

73, kelly

(I’m using Steve’s post as an entry to the conversation, not as a rebuttal of 
what he said.)

> On Dec 30, 2015, at 11:45 AM, Steve London <n2icarrl@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/30/2015 08:27 AM, James Cain wrote:
>> I am shocked by the votes on "Remove Uniques?" Who could oppose removing 
>> uniques, which are, as CQ's official comment says, obviously busted call 
>> signs?
> Nothing like misquoting Randy's comment ! What he actually said was:
> "Most unique calls are copying errors. "
> That's a lot different from your misquote of "which are....obviously busted 
> call signs".
> 73,
> Steve, N2IC
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

CQ-Contest mailing list
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>