[CQ-Contest] Too Much 'Assistance'?

Pete Smith N4ZR n4zr at contesting.com
Fri Feb 21 05:52:21 EST 2014

On the other hand, I have certainly noticed casual contesters spotting 
the station they are calling before they have worked it. In any case, 
the way I use spots I would never see attempted cheats of this sort.

If people really want to figure out where the line is and feel clever 
for exploiting a loophole or ambiguity, all I can say is, "what a waste 
of time and self-respect."

73, Pete N4ZR
Check out the Reverse Beacon Network at
blog at reversebeacon.blogspot.com.
For spots, please go to your favorite
ARC V6 or VE7CC DX cluster node.

On 2/20/2014 12:56 PM, Charlie Gallo wrote:
> There is actually a 3rd option (Not MY opionion, but I know it well)
> "Spirt" and "Intent" don't matter, only the RULES matter, and if you can find a loophole, go for it (Hey, we can say that SO2R is really a violation of the intent of "single" - I won't but...)
> To quote Junior Johnson (NASCAR Racer, Owner, car designer - guy who first used drafting...)
> "If you ain't cheatin, you ain't tryin"
> There are LOTS of grey areas in rules.  I cam across one in a Robotics competition we just finished building for.  Rules say 1/4" pneumatic tube, max ID of .188 (they supply the exact tubing).  They say NOTHING about running pieces in parallel.  We decided against that design, because if they ruled against it at tech inspection, we'd have been dead - BTW the cylinders and air supply were 1/8 pipe, so we could have put in a Tee, and doubled our air flow...
> On 2/20/2014 Tony Brock-Fisher wrote:
>>   Some will agree it
>> clearly violates the spirit and intent of the rules if not the letter;
>> others will argue it's the same as what has been permitted and condoned
>> for years

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list