> From: Ron Notarius WN3VAW
> Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2002 11:48 PM
> To: cq-contest@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] eQSL change of policy
>
>
> K1IR's post disappoints me.
>
> Why is any change blamed on ARRL HQ, why is it always bad, and
> why is always the ARRL which is at fault?
Why are you saying the ARRL staff is always right? eQSL had a
letter/email which stated that printed QSLs from anyone acting
as a legitimate (authorized) QSL manager would be accepted.
Someone among the ARRL staff changed that after the fact to
require a "double blind" process.
I think the change after the fact and without public discussion
is bad form at the minimum.
> Further, since my understanding (from those involved in the LotW
> project) that it's eQSL that chose not to be compatible with LotW
> or anyone else, why is anyone else being blamed for anything they
> do in their own little world?
Again, why are you being an ARRL cheerleader? eQSL "was there first."
Why did LOTW decide to adopt a system that was incompatible from the
beginning and adopt a "take it or leave it" attitude?
There is room for people to work together *IF* everyone is willing
to be flexible. To take the "play by my rules or I'll take my ball
and go home" attitude does nobody any good.
73,
... Joe, K4IK
>From Sylvan Katz <jskatz@sk.sympatico.ca> Thu Apr 4 22:04:01 2002
From: Sylvan Katz <jskatz@sk.sympatico.ca> (Sylvan Katz)
Subject: [CQ-Contest] eQSL change of policy
References: <200204040414.g344E4Al014484@contesting.com>
<079501c1db94$22bae140$03010a0a@office1>
Message-ID: <01f101c1dc24$a0cedf10$6400a8c0@selfsimilar>
> If you don't log a QSO and forget to fill out or send a card, and have no
> way of following up on it later because of a lack of a log entry (mobile,
> portable or otherwise) who's fault is this and why is this blame now being
> assigned to LotW which is still a work in progress?
There is an implicit assumption in the above statement that may not be quite
accurate. It appears to assume that both sides of a qso care about awards
and QSLs. I, for example, don't really care about awards and qsl cards. On
the other hand, I sure want to help those who do by confirming their qso
with me. I don't send QSL cards by mail --- a bit too expensive for my
simple life -- however, eQSLs are ideal. Although, I must admit I have never
initiated an eQSL but I have responded to hundreds of them.
By law I do not have to keep a general log. In practice I don't keep a
general log. I do keep contest logs. After, they are scored, they are
compressed, archived and put on a shelf. Too be quite honest I do not have
the time to search through contest logs, and some months I may have 4
contests logs, to confirm each QSL or eQSL that comes to my mail and
e-mail.boxes.
I rely on the honor system - if a fellow amateur wants an eQSL card from me
then all he has to do is send me an eQSL. I will assume he values our qso
and that he is honorable enough to provide me with accurate information
about our qso in his eQSL . And until the recent change of policy at eQSL.cc
I use to "eQSL 100 percent" but it seems they are forcing me to change my
words to "I never QSL". What a pity.
As others have pointed out, QSLing "is fundamentally an honor system and we
should be striving for ways to implement that honor system as painlessly as
possible."
.. sylvan
Ô¿Ô¬
----------------
Sylvan Katz, VE5ZX
Saskatoon, SK
"A Novel Perspective of Amateur Radio Contesting" at
http://www.dynamicforesight.com/~ve5zx
|