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

[Richard Hill]

If we did have perfect rules, and perfect understanding of them, the 
reflector would go dark and everyone would have to get back on their 
radios.  ;-)

Rich
NU6T

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