[CQ-Contest] Stimulating Participation was: Limited Antenna Height Category

[Pete Smith]

I acknowledge that ARRL would be "letting down their guard" to some extent 
if they allowed block transfers of matched CQWW QSOs, but at some point in 
any such exercise I think you have to ask how much you are giving away for 
the last 1 percent of security.  After all, how likely is it that somebody 
would cook both ends of a QSO in CQWW and then have both logs sent in, 
simply to fake out the DXCC system?  I suppose you could even carry it a 
step further and have some internal rules about not crediting QSOs where 
both ends are uniques, or perhaps other checks could be accomplished.

Its worth remembering that ARRL used to credit ARRL DX Contest QSOs for 
DXCC, if both logs were sent in and matched.  To my knowledge, it was 
workload, rather than any particular scandal(s), that brought the end of 
that practice.  Has the morality of the amateur community really declined 
so much that ARRL no longer dares even consider such a thing?

73, Pete N4ZR

10:59 AM 11/30/2004, you wrote:

>On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 10:46:57 -0500, Pete Smith wrote:
>
> >A harder problem may be achieving the requisite
> >level of trust between the two organizations, even though things seem much
> >better now than in the past, when ARRL would not even mention CQ contests
> >in QST.
>
>_________________________________________________________
>
>The ARRL would have to give up their Trusted QSL protocol, wouldn't
>they?  How would you get around that?
>
>--
>Bill W6WRT
>
>
>
>--
>No virus found in this outgoing message.
>Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>Version: 7.0.289 / Virus Database: 265.4.2 - Release Date: 11/24/2004
>
>_______________________________________________
>CQ-Contest mailing list
>CQ-Contest at contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest