[CQ-Contest] CQ WW Survey Results - part 2

[Cqtestk4xs at aol.com]

So let's screw the ops who don't use packet?  No plaque for  them?  Crazy!
 
Bill K4XS/KH7XS
 
 
 
 
In a message dated 12/30/2015 5:29:31 P.M. Coordinated Universal Tim,  
pa5mw at home.nl writes:

The  issue can be solved by removing the incentive for cheaters.
For SO just  cancel any prize, no wooden plaque anymore.
Instead make the wooden plaque  for SOA twice as large and preferably in 
gold.

Unassisted only  remains the list notification.
The reward already lies in their own honest  achievement.

73 Mark, PA5MW

**Happy New  Year**




-----Original Message----- 
From: Kostas  SV1DPI
Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2015 9:14 AM
To:  cq-contest at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQ WW Survey Results -  part 2

European hams are more sly and know that the most of the hams  even they
send their log as SO, they are really SOA and steal. I know many  hams in
Greece do it. Really I don't know anyone that he does not use  clusters.
When I ask them, they reply that everyone uses clusters today,  that they
need to catch a new dxcc entity, that everyone does the same,  that the
didn't understand the rules, bla bla... I don't believe that there  is at
least one casual operator who does not use clusters. Think that the  last
year, a ham was caught to add fake QSOs in his log!!! Do you think  that
he did not use clusters? :)
The newer contests have not a SO  category. I believe that the organizers
and rule makers just know the truth  and see the reality of our real world.
Have you tried to call CQ outside of  a contest? Nobody replies or just a
few. And when someone spot you, you  have a big pileup. Do you really
believe that ham operators who work this  way in everyday life, does not
use clusters the next day in a contest?
I  understand the hams who voted for separate categories. The most of
them and  especially the USA hams believe more in ham spirit and that
every ham is  honest (as it should be - otherwise he is not really a ham
radio operator).  When you realize the reality this way, it is normal to
ask for separate  categories. I want also separate categories but only if
I know that the  game is honest. If we can not catch them, it is more
simple and more honest  to make one category and this is what I voted
both times.
I know this  way we can say that we don't know also if we have one
operator or more, so  let's make only Multi operators category, etc...
But let's say to keep the  game and our thought in normal level. This is
big steal, a secret   known by more it is not a secret, and finally it is
not the same...
73  Kostas SV1DPI

On 30/12/2015 2:45 πμ, w2lc at twcny.rr.com wrote:
>  Bill KO7SS, what did you see that I didn't?
>
> What I see is US  ops and overall do not want SO & SOA combined. And 
> overwhelmingly  so in the US. I don't want those combined either. I have 
no 
> interest  in skimmer, RBN or spotting networks. Yes I have used RBN and 
> spots  on occasion but nothing there that excites me. I would rather just 
> do  it myself or do SO2R.
>
> However, I am in favor of putting SOA in  with multi-single, that is a 
much 
> better match of categories. SOA has  more in common with multi-single 
than 
> SO.
>
> It looks  like everyone sees whatever conclusion that they want to see.
>
>  And a shorter log deadline? Geez I missed the deadline the last 2 years 
by  
> an hour or 2 by sending my log on following Friday night. ok this is  
> checklog Charlie going out to play in the snow
>
> 73  Scott W2LC
>
>  _______________________________________________
> 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  

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