[CQ-Contest] Shut down the clusters during a contest. SImple.

[Dick-w0raa]

Well, I sure opened up a can of worms, didn't I?  At least it got the 
subject changed from Cheating.  Flame away, I have the fireproof suit on. 
LOL!!!!!!

Dick
W0RAA


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Richard DiDonna NN3W" <nn3w at cox.net>
To: "Dick-w0raa" <w0raa at comcast.net>; "cq-contesting" 
<cq-contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 2:25 PM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Shut down the clusters during a contest. SImple.


> You want to cut down on QSO counts for every one? Shut down the clusters.
>
> A lot of hams get on during the contests to work new DX countries or work 
> a few here and there.
>
> Bad move IMHO.
>
> 73 Rich NN3W
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Dick-w0raa" <w0raa at comcast.net>
> To: "cq-contesting" <cq-contest at contesting.com>
> Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 10:52 AM
> Subject: [CQ-Contest] Shut down the clusters during a contest. SImple.
>
>
>> Has anybody given thought to asking the people who own/operate the 
>> various
>> clusters, to voluntarily shut them down during contest periods?  What did 
>> we
>> do before there were clusters and packet?  We fouind stations to work, 
>> the
>> old fashioned way.  We turned the knob and looked for them.  God forbid 
>> we
>> should have to do that today.  What a horrible thought.
>>
>> So, why not just get all of them to voluntarily turn them off at the 
>> onset
>> of a contest and then turn them back on at the end of the contest?  I 
>> think
>> it's doable, so why not do it?  Then we'd find out if these big gun 
>> winners
>> are as big gunned as they claim to be.  It's certainly worth considering.
>>
>> Also, all contests should be limited to 100 watts.  Now there's where the
>> cheating would go.  Cheaters would be saying: "Me, more than 100 watts? 
>> Not
>> me, I follow the rules!"
>>
>> Dick
>> W0RAA
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: "Mike Fatchett W0MU" <w0mu at w0mu.com>
>> To: "Randy Thompson" <k5zd at charter.net>; "Untitled"
>> <cq-contest at contesting.com>
>> Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 4:43 PM
>> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] cheating with packet
>>
>>
>>> Assisted seems to have less competitors which translates to higher
>>> finishes...
>>>
>>> I most cases if you are chasing spots you are probably not winning.  Run
>>> run
>>> run run run.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12/12/07 4:37 PM, "Randy Thompson" <k5zd at charter.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Because some of us still like to do things the old fashioned way.  All 
>>>> by
>>>> ourselves!  And we like the fact that we can compete in a category with
>>>> other people who feel the same way.  Even makes it more fun when we can
>>>> beat
>>>> the packet assisted guys.
>>>>
>>>> I am against combining them because I like to be recognized as a guy 
>>>> who
>>>> knows how to operate.
>>>>
>>>> I wouldn't mind if they were combined because then all the SOA guys who
>>>> think they are competitive will realize that packet does not a winning
>>>> score
>>>> make.
>>>>
>>>> Randy, K5ZD
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com
>>>>> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Yuri VE3DZ
>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 7:08 PM
>>>>> To: cq-contest at contesting.com
>>>>> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] cheating with packet
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't like Dx Cluster, but the reality is - like it or not
>>>>> - almost everyone is using it nowadays, one way or another. I
>>>>> mean 99.9 % of the HAM stations have the capability of using
>>>>> Dx Cluster today.
>>>>> So, why not just allow it for all categories, like it was
>>>>> done for WAE or Russian DX long time ago?
>>>>>
>>>>> What are we afraid of here?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yuri  VE3DZ
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>