[CQ-Contest] Did I cheat in NAQP CW?

[Kelly Taylor]

And of course, that raises another question:
If writing the rules will take a team of lawyers, then each of us will have
to consult with our $300-per-hour legal beagles to understand them.

Is that the kind of hobby we want?

I didn't get in to this so lawyers would get rich. If that's where we're
going, stop the bus and let me off.

Most of the rules were fine when we couldn't sit here and nitpick them to
death as armchair barristers. The key is to stop over-analyzing.

73, kelly
ve4xt




On 1/15/10 11:29 AM, "Wayne Mills" <n7ng at bresnan.net> wrote:

> Geoffrey,
> 
> "At what point are the rules incapable of addressing the current issues?"
> 
> 
> Excellent point. In general, humans don't like changes. We like stability.
> In our passion not to change anything since the beginning of time (and
> contesting), our contest rules continue to be made more and more obsolete by
> lots of things, attitude changes and technology, to name two. Rules banning
> this and that technology are pretty much useless as they become more and
> more unenforceable. (Think outside the box and down the road a few years.)
> It's easy for our log analysis to show there is a 98% chance that you are
> cheating, but it's another matter to prove it.
> 
> A major regulatory vacuum is developing in contesting (DXing is another,
> similar topic). [The] one thing Stu Green and I agreed upon was that for the
> DXCC rules to be completely fair and effective, a team of lawyers would be
> required in their writing. One issue then is how far should contest sponsors
> go in that direction, and where should common sense take over. Maybe
> establishing that line is in part the function of forums like CQ-Contest. At
> the very least the forums could serve to define the problem.
> 
> 73, Wayne, N7NG
> Jackson Hole, WY
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest