[CQ-Contest] Claiming assistance when not actually assisted

Martin , LU5DX lu5dx at lucg.com.ar
Thu Dec 3 11:05:22 EST 2015

I would think, that constitutes a pretty unsportsmanlike behavior.
One should submit his/her log according to the actual entry category. Not
any other possible category to get better results.


Martin LU5DX

On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 11:57 AM, Tim Shoppa <tshoppa at gmail.com> wrote:

> I would strongly discourage anyone from claiming assistance when not
> actually assisted by the official rules. This smells too much of "gaming
> category to get a plaque" and could easily result in an unassisted operator
> getting a plaque that was actually intended for a truly, by-the-rules,
> assisted operator.
> I note that in CQWWCW 2013, if the #3 USA unassisted operator had claimed
> assistance, he would've been #1 USA assisted. I could come up with many
> other such examples, especially in WRTC qualifying years.
> I also note that in my first ever RTTY contest (ARRL RTTY RU 2012), I was
> unassisted-low but I carelessly sent my log in such a way, that the robot
> put me in assisted-low which (because there was no single-op assisted
> category) means that my log was put in the MSLP category. I saw this in the
> robot's message but didn't pay any attention at the time because it was my
> first RTTY contest ever and I knew I wasn't a contender. Just a few months
> later I go to a club meeting, and everyone congratulates me on setting a
> new record for MDC MSLP (which is how assisted single-ops were categorized
> at the time.)
> To this day I can still go to the ARRL website and see it says I still hold
> that record, a record I do not actually deserve:
> http://www.arrl.org/files/file/Contest%20Records/2014/arrlrtty_records_2014_wve.txt
> Tim N3QE
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list