Re: [CQ-Contest] Stimulating Participation was: LimitedAntenna Height Category

[Pete Smith <n4zr@contesting.com>]

At 12:45 PM 11/30/2004, Bill Turner wrote:

> On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 12:34:44 -0500, Pete Smith wrote:
>
> >I acknowledge that ARRL would be "letting down their guard" to some extent
> >if they allowed block transfers of matched CQWW QSOs, but at some point in
> >any such exercise I think you have to ask how much you are giving away for
> >the last 1 percent of security.
>
> _________________________________________________________
>
> The last time I checked, the ARRL would not accept QSLs from eQSL,
> even though the QSO was confirmed at both ends.  They might change
> their attitude if there were some good security guarantees but it
> would be difficult to convince them.  They have spent a lot of time
> getting LoTW secure and I doubt they would be willing to compromise it
> even a little bit.  Just a guess, I could be wrong.

My guess is one part NIH (not invented here), one part competitiveness, and 
one part legitimate concern.  I think it is infinitely more probable that 
people would try to game a system based on confirming one QSO at a time 
(EQSL or LotW) than one based on contest logs where both logs would have to 
be in the system and subject to scrutiny.

But you're probably right about ARRL's attitude, and in fact I've been told 
as much in the past.  Doesn't mean it isn't still a good idea, particularly 
in the face of flat or declining participation in contests, which is why I 
have brought it up again.

73, Pete N4ZR


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