[CQ-Contest] CQ 160m contest-vs-DXCC rule problem

[contesting at w2irt.net]

From: rjairam at gmail.com <rjairam at gmail.com> 
>>For the record, DXAC recommended a distance limit the both times they were asked to evaluate this rule. That would prevent "propagation shopping" as you call it. Two wrongs don't make a right.

[pjd] While I'm in favor of remote receive-only, the fact remains that it is not acceptable and anybody submitting such a contact is breaking the rule, thus rendering those QSOs invalid for DXCC credit. I'm not debating the merits of that pro or con.

My issue also isn't with CQ saying remote receive-only is OK for contesting within certain limited parameters. That's their call and it's my call if I choose to use it, within the scope of the contest rules.

My issue is that it's just too easy for someone to cheat with an invalid DXCC submission, and I'd wager 99% of those who do submit an ineligible QSO don't even realize that is the case. 

Perhaps the League should have a check box in the LoTW interface for 160m submissions where you agree that no remote rx-only technology was employed, or add fields in Cabrillo and ADIF that allow the contest op to state if that technology was used, and if so, those Qs would not be uploaded automatically to LoTW. Not a perfect solution, but a way to keep honest ops honest, at least?