[CQ-Contest] Convergence and Change

Martin , LU5DX lu5dx at lucg.com.ar
Tue May 24 18:06:27 EDT 2016

Actually not.

I'm not trying to escape the answer.
Power cheating if of a total different nature and it is a matter of
infrastructure to prove that someone is cheating.
In the case of unclaimed assistance it is not.

Certainly there is a radical solution, that will actually eliminate the
possibility of unclaimed assistance, will almost turn CW skimmers useless
and will reduce the impact of power abuse.

The magical QSO/QSY rule!

What more challenging than having to move after each QSO?  The "Just a boy
and his radio" paradigm would fully benefit from this.

You see I'm not against ye olde fashioned way of making Qs, don't you?

One more benefit of the QSO/QSY rule is that it democratizes the bands
spectrum. No more: PSE QSY! The frequency is mine, I've just left the chair
to take a bio break!!! No more fighting against HG1S in my case when I'm
working JAs on 20 meters at 12 UTC because he can't hear me and starts
calling on MY frequency :-)

And if you want even more out of QSO/QSY: it trully helps develop great
operating skills.


Martin LU5DX

On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 3:34 PM, Christian Schneider <
prickler.schneider at t-online.de> wrote:

> According to you, we cannot eliminate one way of cheating because there
>> are others...
>> Does that make sense to you??
>> Well, you try to escape the answer knowing that power cheating of course
> has a much much bigger impact, runnning 100W in qrp or running well above
> legal limit in HP; not two mention 2 ops in SO etc etc.
> But all efforts to weasel out of the crucial issue fail: Without on-site
> inspections we will not come near to "real sports" - and even real sports
> with their much better checks cannot escape their cheating ghosts with tech
> manipulations and more or less untraceable medical doping.
> That is NOT to say that we should give up fighting against cheating and to
> do what we can to trace cheaters as sheer deterrent against as many
> cheaters and wannabe cheaters as possible. But we should not give in to
> cheaters and let fear reign and subsequently ruin parts of our competitions
> that are valuable to many of us. At the end it should be up to every
> organizer how much he can invest. As sad as it may sound to tech people: We
> will have no scientificly bulletproof scores but have to apply our own
> trust or experience on any scores. Of course tough for those investing big
> amounts of time and money.
> 73 Chris DL8MBS

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list