[UK-CONTEST] Contest cheats?

[Colin]

Gentlemen,

May I quote from the IARU Region 1 VHF/UHF/Microwave Managers Handbook -

> /A definition for a valid QSO on VHF and on higher bands should be:- /
>
> /A valid contact is one where both operators during the contact have/
>
> /(1) mutually identified each other/
>
> /(2) received a report, and/
>
> /(3) received a confirmation of the successful identification and the 
> reception of the report./
>
> / /
>
> /It is emphasized that the responsibility always lies with the 
> operator for the integrity of the contact./
>
Nuff sed?

73

Colin, G3PSM

Peter Hobbs wrote:
> Ray
>
> I think we're on a slippery slope here, mate.  Any off-air exchange that 
> makes the difference between a QSO and NO QSO has to be, in my view, just as 
> serious as passing the full QSO data.  Once an external line of 
> communication has been established, almost anything can fall into that 
> category, e.g. locator, which a lot of peeps include as part of their 
> message sig.  I'm sure the RSGB Contest Committee has discussed all this 
> extensively and taken a similar view - hence their position on the subject, 
> which is really the only one they could reasonably be expected to take.
>
> I  don't know if you plan to make it down to HFC, but that's probably a 
> suitable forum for more detailed discussion.
>
> 73
> Peter G3LET
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Ray James" <gm4cxm at yahoo.co.uk>
> To: "UK Contest reflector" <uk-contest at contesting.com>; "Peter Hobbs" 
> <peter at tilgate.co.uk>
> Sent: Monday, September 15, 2008 2:55 PM
> Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] Contest cheats?
>
>
>   
>> --- On Mon, 15/9/08, Peter Hobbs <peter at tilgate.co.uk> wrote:
>>     
>>> Do I gather then that cheating is now acceptable in V/UHF/Microwave
>>> contests?
>>>       
>>> 73Peter G3LET
>>>       
>> Absolutely not Peter and anyone or group found guilty should be subject to 
>> the following action.
>> A warning plus points deduction for minor breaches and subsequent 
>> disqualification if correction in future events does not take place.
>> Disqualification, full stop, for serious breaches.
>>
>> I define a minor breach as for example a station in Stornaway arranges a 
>> schedule on 70cm with a station in Essex and after arranging the schedule 
>> they go on to "talk" to the station in a way that would assist the 
>> completion of the contact.
>> This could be saying for example, "just needing the seriel number again"
>> A major breach would include actual exchange of contact information "off 
>> air".
>>
>> Any contest station in receipt of non-requested feedback should inform the 
>> sender that not observing contest rules and to try again later to 
>> establish contact as the contact in progress has now been made void by 
>> feedback.
>> This occurs more often than not by a non-contester giving points away 
>> rather than a competitor.
>> I do this within and outwith contests as per the guidelines on ON4KST.
>>
>> 73 Ray GM4CXM
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> UK-Contest mailing list
>> UK-Contest at contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest
>>
>>     
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
> Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.6.21/1671 - Release Date: 14/09/2008 
> 07:16
>
> _______________________________________________
> UK-Contest mailing list
> UK-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest
>
>