[CQ-Contest] qrp-declaration...

[ve4xt at mts.net]

Hi Chris,

Glad to see I'm not alone in thinking the /qrp is a bad idea!

I'm just curious, however: how does adding anything to either the call (the /qrp) or the exchange 
prevent cheating? A cheat will do whatever you require him to do to cover up his cheating. And as we 
know, relative signal strength just is not proof of excess power: lots of QRP stations sound QRO and lots 
of QRO stations sound QRP just because of skip angles.

Aside from having wattmeter-bearing referees in every shack, there seems to be just no way to address 
power cheating.

73, kelly
ve4xt


> 
> From: DL8MBS <prickler.schneider at t-online.de>
> Date: 2008/03/11 Tue AM 10:47:57 CDT
> To: cq-contest at contesting.com
> Subject: [CQ-Contest] qrp-declaration...
> 
> If detecting cheaters by monitoring stations is an aim (a good one I 
> think) why not better add a power designator to the exchange like H, L, 
> Q (RDXA already being a contest with a REAL exchange)? It is only one 
> additional character and sent by EVERY station - not coming out of the 
> blue like every 23rd station being qrp and sending something cryptic 
> with a slash.
>  
> I do some QRP-contesting and it would take an armed man in my shack to 
> make me send an additional /qrp - if it were allowed in DL and not 
> making me multi-op ;-)  I´m thankful for every guy on the other end 
> taking the time for more than one request about call and serial number. 
> Should I also torture him with guessing what´s behind the slash? IMHO NO.
> 
> But: RDXC is a great contest!
> 
> Only my two eurocents.
> 73, Chris
> 
> (www.dl8mbs.de)
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>