[VHFcontesting] VUAC Survey input/ debate

Thu Feb 11 11:02:02 PST 2010

There was a scandal of a HF contest that forbid the use of spotting.  However there is no way to prevent a proxy spotter on the internet.  However one disgruntled contestant was able to correlate two things.  

1. Another contestant that was benefiting from by proxy spots. IE his qso count would go up when he switched bands and parked it on a new frequency and someone continually "happened" to spot him within the first 3 qsos each time. As compared to being spotted after 25 qsos for other people who are spotted randomly.

2.  A second contestant who was using the spots to complete QSOS because he would constanly work a station within a minute or two of each new spot vs a 10 minute average for the average person. 

this was in a World wide HF contest a few years ago.

From: Jimk8mr at aol.com
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 11:57:45 -0500
Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] VUAC Survey input/ debate
To: k3uhf at hotmail.com; vhfcontesting at contesting.com

In a message dated 2/11/2010 11:43:26 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, k3uhf at hotmail.com writes:
A major scandal like this happened one with a CQ HF contest where someone documented unassisted people were being spotted and the QSO times matched the spots. Why expose an ARRL contest to that?

What are you talking about?  When was this ever a scandal?

This happens all the time in HF contests, and nobody cares about it in regard to rules violations. It may be annoying that people like me in Ohio get spotted less than someone in Vermont or Puerto Rico, but it has never been an  adjudication issue.

There have been issues with people who claimed to be unassisted who made qsos that lined up with posted packet spots, and who were disqualified or reclassified. But this is in no way what you are talking about.

73  -  Jim   K8MR

_________________________________________________________________
Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469229/direct/01/