[CQ-Contest] self help during contest

[KI9A at aol.com]

I agree with Hans. Hands down.  
 
The Q is made, and anything after that is, in my opinion, wrong. 
 
But, now having said that, what about the old days--when you sat all Monday  
evening, doing dupe sheets. Was this right?
 
73- Chuck KI9A
 A boy, a radio, and a computer
 
 
In a message dated 12/8/2008 8:29:31 P.M. Central Standard Time,  
kzerohb at gmail.com writes:

If it  happens in "real time/heat of battle" --- ie., two guys at a M/M 
listening  in parallel headsets and "deciding" seems perfectly acceptable to  
me.

Flagging the QSO for later leisurely playback, review, and  correction 
(inside or outside the contest period)  is neither  reasonable, 
sportsmanlike, nor acceptable.

73, de Hans,  K0HB
Just a boy and his  radio

--------------------------------------------------
From:  <kr2q at optimum.net>
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 5:00 PM
To:  <k1ep.list at gmail.com>
Cc: <cq-contest at contesting.com>;  <wc1m at msn.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] self help during  contest

> I don't think it is a loop-hole at all.  Multi-ops,  as far as I know, have 
> ALWAYS had the
> ability and option to  have more than one op per operating frequency.  In 
> other  words,
> if N2AA is running on 7001, it was not uncommon to have two ops  listening 
> to 7001.
>
> I know that I did that when I was  M/M.  It was not uncommon for each of 
> the two ops to
>  either share the callsign that "they" copied (and it was always amazing to 
 
> me how two
> guys would copy separate stations), or they could  "help" each other to get 
> a single callsign
> right.  When  the pile up is that big, there are plenty of calls to copy 
> and having  two heads
> copying just keeps things boiling at a higher  rate.
>
> I haven't done M/M in about 20 years, but isn't this  still a reasonable 
> practice for multi-ops?
>
> de Doug  KR2Q
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Ed  K1EP
> Date: Monday, December 8, 2008 11:39 am
> Subject: Re:  [CQ-Contest] self help during contest
> To: wc1m at msn.com,  kr2q at optimum.net, cq-contest at contesting.com
>
>> So in that  vain, in a MM, you could a non-operator as a
>> "reviewer". He or she  would review the recorded audio for any
>> questionable QSO that was  flagged by an op. The op could
>> continue to
>> op and the  reviewer would make any corrections to the log. As
>>  long
>> as it takes place during the 48 hours, it would be legal. I  am
>> NOT
>> suggesting this be done, but it is a "loophole"  within the rules.
>  _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing  list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
>  http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest  

_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing  list
CQ-Contest at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest


**************Make your life easier with all your friends, email, and 
favorite sites in one place.  Try it now. 
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000010)