[CQ-Contest] PJ4G ARRL DX SSB Recording by N2IC

[Ed Sawyer]

Personally, I don’t believe many people are cheating.  I would rather continue to find those that are as it can be done and preserve the joy of the game.  

 

Lets not bring something down to the least common denominator.

 

I am a competitor- and for me that’s what desire.

 

Others may feel differently.  But if so, I don’t hear them.

 

Any other top 10 finishers in any of the majors have enough concern of cheating to change the category?

 

Ed  N1UR

 

From: Ria Jairam [mailto:rjairam at gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2017 4:56 PM
To: sawyered at earthlink.net
Cc: CQ-Contest Reflector
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] PJ4G ARRL DX SSB Recording by N2IC

 

My comment was aimed more at "we have to merge SO/SOA so cheaters can't cheat."

 

There was cheating some years ago where a "SO2R" operator was actually suspected to actually have a 2nd operator and reclassified/DQed (can't remember which). So to eliminate this, we should take the incentive to cheat away by segregating SO2R into multiop.

 

Of course, that won't happen. 

 

But I hear the drumbeat of "We have to merge, we have to merge, cheaters are coming!" and I don't like it one bit, 

 

Things sound ridiculous when we take them to extremes.

 

We don't notice until our way of operating is affected. 

 

Ria

N2RJ

 

 

On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 10:35 AM, Ed Sawyer <sawyered at earthlink.net> wrote:


SO2R has nothing to do with fairness any more than have a 4 sq in a salt
marsh on 160 is fair vs the rest of the competing world using inv Ls or
dipoles or verticals over normal soil.



When someone lies about using assistance to gain an unfair advantage, that
is just plain cheating.  Mushing SO2R and lieing serves no purpose and is
uncalled for.



73



Ed  N1UR


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