HOLD IT!!!!! There are NO "proposed changes" to the ARRL DX contest. What DOES exist is a study item for the CAC to examine POSSIBLE changes in order to make it easier to crosscheck logs for accuracy
Semantics......................if it is being discussed as an action item coming out of the Membership Services Committee who then referred it to the CSC per Don Henderson, it may not be considered a
Thanks for the sanity check. Now, if someone involved with the log checking process could tell us what there is about the current exchange that makes log checking difficult we could begin to have a m
I received the message that follows my comments from Bill Kennamer and post it here with his permission. IMHO, if accurate and thorough log checking is a good thing for contesting and a portion of th
HOLD IT!!!!! There are NO "proposed changes" to the ARRL DX contest. What DOES exist is a study item for the CAC to examine POSSIBLE changes in order to make it easier to crosscheck logs for accuracy
Semantics......................if it is being discussed as an action item coming out of the Membership Services Committee who then referred it to the CSC per Don Henderson, it may not be considered a
Thanks for the sanity check. Now, if someone involved with the log checking process could tell us what there is about the current exchange that makes log checking difficult we could begin to have a m
I received the message that follows my comments from Bill Kennamer and post it here with his permission. IMHO, if accurate and thorough log checking is a good thing for contesting and a portion of th
In my opinion, this would eliminate any challenge in the exchange, making it essentially like CQWW but without the geographic diversity. I don't see why a test like Tree's "instability quotient" coul
Yes. The something that is broken is the LOG CHECKING. Let's concentrate on fixing that as much as possible, rather than altering the exchange, which is NOT broken. IMO, this would turn ARRL into CQ
Who ever came up the idea that log checking and the use of computers now is the driving force behind contest operations. Seems like a backwards way to go, change the event to make checking easier. If
I have informed Bill and SE Division ARRL officials that I do not agree that power level makes checking difficult so the contest is NOT broken. Changes just because the power might change or someone
== Is it not still within the contest rules for a SO station to use packet for generating spots? I seem to recall that CT will allow SO entries to put out spots but not to see any traffic on the clus
A solution for the power level problem is change the rule to read "The exchange shall be a signal report plus the power level you use at the start of the contest. It should not be changed if you chan
It depends on how one defines "the power level problem". IMO, the fact that so many stations use the SAME power level, reduces greatly the usefulness of that data field as a differentiator between ca