Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+CQWW\s+impt\s+notice\:\s+optional\s+modification\s+to\s+cabrillo\s+format\s*$/: 13 ]

Total 13 documents matching your query.

1. [CQ-Contest] CQWW impt notice: optional modification to cabrillo format (score: 1)
Author: kr2q@optimum.net
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2011 11:54:43 +0000 (GMT)
Hi... I just received an inquiry (as shown below) and I thought it was worth posting here too. "We were M/S and find that we worked some non-mults with the mult station. What should we do?" New this
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2011-11/msg00101.html (7,993 bytes)

2. Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW impt notice: optional modification to cabrillo format (score: 1)
Author: ww3s@zoominternet.net
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 09:25:48 -0500
I'm not sure this is a good idea......at what point are too many "X" too many? As someone that's operated M/S now a few times, we take great pains to make sure the mult station only works mults....wh
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2011-11/msg00124.html (9,199 bytes)

3. Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW impt notice: optional modification to cabrillo format (score: 1)
Author: W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu@w0mu.com>
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2011 11:16:09 -0700
Wait................ So a Multi/Single can break the rules and have their contacts removed yet the other station gets to keep the contact even though the station they worked violated the rules? So wh
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2011-11/msg00146.html (9,708 bytes)

4. Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW impt notice: optional modification to cabrillo format (score: 1)
Author: rin JG1VGX <jg1vgx@jarl.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 13:11:54 +0900
How about defining the ratio of XQSOs to total QSOs to such as 2% or 5% in the rules? This way inadvertent 'slips of the finger' XQSOs will be saved and not penalized harshly but deliberate stretch o
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2011-11/msg00148.html (11,937 bytes)

5. Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW impt notice: optional modification to cabrillo format (score: 1)
Author: Zack Widup <w9sz.zack@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 22:44:54 -0600
The station on the other end has no idea he's working someone who is breaking the rules. He makes a QSO and all the correct info is exchanged. As far as he knows it's a valid QSO. He didn't do anythi
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2011-11/msg00150.html (11,951 bytes)

6. Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW impt notice: optional modification to cabrillo format (score: 1)
Author: Luc Moreira <py8azt@dxbrasil.net>
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 08:13:59 -0300
As I could understand, a team could operate as M/2, and depending the others participants score, they could comment out some QSOs and send in the log as M/S, and still into the rules. It's like open
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2011-11/msg00160.html (12,116 bytes)

7. Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW impt notice: optional modification to cabrillo format (score: 1)
Author: "Bob Naumann" <W5OV@W5OV.COM>
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 06:43:05 -0600
If the multi-single gets no credit for these qsos, what's the problem? All the other stations they work get the benefit of them being on. Isn't the objective for all participants to have more fun? Se
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2011-11/msg00164.html (11,775 bytes)

8. Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW impt notice: optional modification to cabrillo format (score: 1)
Author: "Igor Sokolov" <ua9cdc@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 18:56:31 +0600
Mike, I worked some MS in the past and will be MS in coming CQWW CW. If I am at the mult position and suddenly start working non mult in order to mark them later as not valid in cabrillo I loose more
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2011-11/msg00180.html (13,633 bytes)

9. Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW impt notice: optional modification to cabrillo format (score: 1)
Author: W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu@w0mu.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2011 09:06:37 -0700
What is Multi Single? A bunch of hams using ONE radio and taking turns. At least that what it is to most people. It has now devolved into 10 guys sitting around a bunch of radios now all running stat
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2011-11/msg00182.html (15,103 bytes)

10. Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW impt notice: optional modification to cabrillo format (score: 1)
Author: W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu@w0mu.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2011 09:28:19 -0700
Simply follow the rules and don't work non mults. Why is this a problem? I have to wonder what is really going on that the Mult station cannot determine of the guy they want to work is a multiplier o
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2011-11/msg00189.html (14,515 bytes)

11. Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW impt notice: optional modification to cabrillo format (score: 1)
Author: w5ov@w5ov.com
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 14:08:09 -0500
The rest of the story is very simple (aside from my m/s CQing feaux pas) the issue is what if one of these m/s guys makes a QSO with a non-mult by mistake. Let's say it was V26O's multiplier station
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2011-11/msg00195.html (16,942 bytes)

12. Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW impt notice: optional modification to cabrillo format (score: 1)
Author: W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu@w0mu.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2011 15:22:34 -0700
I can understand this if used on a very limited basis to correct an honest mistake. What Doug wrote opens the door to the other station just working every one they hear and then marking out all the n
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2011-11/msg00208.html (18,459 bytes)

13. Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW impt notice: optional modification to cabrillo format (score: 1)
Author: "Igor Sokolov" <ua9cdc@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 02:18:44 +0600
Mike, Nobody is perfect. We all make mistakes. Send me your UBN for the last year CQWW CW and I might be able to find there some call signs that could be used as an example. Suppose you were mult op
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2011-11/msg00210.html (10,849 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu