The casual contester doesn't care about any of this because it doesn't
affect them. It's a good thing to call out the bad apples.
Once again, the CQ Contest Committee did a top notch job improving the
integrity of the game. What we don't want or need is our radiosport
turning into a farce of a competition like bicycle racing, with their
doping and hidden eletric motors (to which they continue to turn a blind
eye).
Barry W2UP
On 2/5/2018 3:35 PM, Kelly Taylor wrote:
This constant kvetching can’t be good for contesting. It certainly does nothing
to make me fret about spending more time on archery than on the radio.
Go have your stringently enforced contests. I don’t care anymore. I’m sure more people are getting
closer to saying ‘Screw contesting’ altogether. In fact, I’m unsubscribing from this cesspool
of hatred and anger anyway.
73, kelly, ve4xt
On Feb 5, 2018, at 10:50 AM, Jim Brown <k9yc@audiosystemsgroup.com> wrote:
On 2/4/2018 8:42 PM, Kelly Taylor wrote:
I think if anything, the lesson here is the value of transparency. Announcing
DQs (or administrative check logs) but trying to keep the reasons private just
raises suspicion.
WRONG -- it also gives cheaters clues about what things they do can be
detected, and, what cannot.
73, Jim K9YC
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|