[CQ-Contest] CQWW impt notice: optional modification to cabrillo format

[Bob Naumann]

If the multi-single gets no credit for these qsos, what's the problem? 

All the other stations they work get the benefit of them being on.

Isn't the objective for all participants to have more fun? 

Seems to me that these multi-single guys making more zero-point qsos with
other stations can only be positive for the other stations - the
multi-single gains nothing.

Them making the decision to do this may hurt them in other ways as they will
not be looking for multipliers and may miss some.

Sure, they might get a new multiplier responding to their CQ from time to
time, but isn't this better than them calling CQ and saying "sorry, can't
work you now, you're not a multiplier" to the rest of us?

W5OV

-----Original Message-----
From: cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com
[mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of W0MU Mike Fatchett
Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2011 12:16 PM
To: cq-contest at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW impt notice: optional modification to
cabrillo format

Wait................

So a Multi/Single can break the rules and have their contacts removed 
yet the other station gets to keep the contact even though the station 
they worked violated the rules?  So what is to stop the mult station 
from running and just marking the non mults as zero pointers?

This sounds like trouble waiting to happen especially with some folks 
who will stretch the rules to the max.

Explain to me how the mult station ends up working non mults?

Mike W0MU

J6M CQ WW DX CW Contest 2011
J6/W0MU November 21 - December 1 2011
W0MU-1 CC Cluster w0mu.net


On 11/8/2011 4:54 AM, kr2q at optimum.net wrote:
> Hi...
>
> I just received an inquiry (as shown below) and I thought it was worth
posting here too.
>
> "We were M/S and find that we worked some non-mults with the mult station.
What should we
> do?"
>
> New this year for CQWW, you can now include a contact row in your cabrillo
file that WILL NOT
> COUNT.  This means the log checking will ignore this QSO for you, but will
NOT ignore it for the
> "other guy."  This way, YOUR log is clean AND the other guy does not get
dinged.
>
> How?
>
> Edit your cabrillo output as follows:
>
> For ONLY the row (or rows) you want to be ignored, insert an "X" (no
quotes" in front of the
> "QSO" portion of the row (no spaces).
>
> So a row that originally look like this:
> QSO:  7011 CW 2009-11-28 0000 KT3Y   599 5      YU1LA         599 15     1
>
> Should be modified to look like this:
> XQSO:  7011 CW 2009-11-28 0000 KT3Y   599 5      YU1LA         599 15
0
>
> For M/S, also note that you should change the "Transmitter ID" (last
column) from "1" to "0"
>
> For full details (video) of the entire CQWW 2011 update, go to:
>
> http://www.pvrc.org/webinar/cqww_2011.wmv
>
> And THANKS again to the PVRC for hosting this.
>
> de Doug KR2Q
> no "usual" disclaimer
> _______________________________________________
> 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