[CQ-Contest] what is required of received audio, and why

[Yuri]

Agree with Randy, Barry and Martin.
Should be SO and MO (1, or M TX). And no power category separation, which is a real joke now...
Mandatory audio recording for top scores...
No matter, you like it or not. It's inevitable. Like using cellphone or computer.
Like N2IC said, The law of unintended consequences...
Please remember that Randy was CQ WW Contest director for many years (and the most successful one IMO) in addition to being a top notch contester and he speaks from his experience. 
I personally value his opinion more than the ones of some other guys who are doing more "contesting" on this reflector rather than in the air.

Yuri  VE3DZ

-----Original Message-----
From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Martin Monsalvo - LU5DX
Sent: Friday, March 10, 2017 5:08 AM
To: Randy Thompson K5ZD
Cc: CQ-Contest
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] what is required of recevied audio, and whay

+1
73,

Martin LU5DX

⁣Enviado desde BlueMail ​

En mar 9, 2017 10:43 p. m., en 10:43 p. m., Randy Thompson K5ZD <k5zd at charter.net> escribió:
>You are right.  We should fold the unassisted category into assisted so 
>everyone can compete on a level playing field...
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf
>Of
>> Steve London
>> Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2017 7:07 PM
>> To: cq-contest at contesting.com
>> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] what is required of recevied audio, and
>whay
>> 
>> I agree with Ed - it was a terrible decision to allow panadapters and 
>> waterfalls in the unassisted category. It was obvious to me that it 
>> wouldn't take long for bandmaps to be merged with these displays,
>making
>> unassisted and assisted indistinguishable to the adjudicators, even
>with
>> a recording. The law of unintended consequences.
>> 
>> 73,
>> Steve, N2IC
>> 
>>