Put yourself in the shoes of a contest log-checker. (All calls, contests, and times in this example are completely ficticious.) In checking the logs, you notice that a number of stations claim to hav
Depends. A few years ago I was operating unassisted in All-Asia CW and stumbled across 4S7AX calling CQ. He started working a pileup of JA's. I managed to work him but he was only QRV for a half hour
I believe that you are saying that XY8Z was not actually active in the contest and that the spot for XY8Z was a "busted call" spot. Let's suppose that the real station operating at that time and freq
Hi Steve, Quite the pickle, isn't it? I would say the first thing is to contact XY8Z and make sure he was actually on during that time. If he was, then I'm not sure what you can do about the unassist
I think you missed a sentence in my original posting. "You [the log checker] have personal knowledge that XY8Z was not active in the contest." _______________________________________________ CQ-Conte
Since this happens in every single contest I propose the following rule change in every contest: Allow the use of packet in all classes. There are hundreds, yes hundreds, of cheaters in every contest
NX5M: N7MAL: Sorry guys, I'm not interested in entering a race against others using crutches only to find out that one or two of them who don't need crutches can go faster than me if they borrow some
Merry Christmas to you too, Mal. But I have a better idea to "put contesting back into contesting"..... DISallow the use of packet in all classes. Crutches are for the handicapped. Beep beep de Hans
Steve, Interesting question. But the next question I would ask is "was there a SIGNAL on the air alleging to be XY8Z on the air at that time?" Sad to say, we have a tiny group of jokers who love to p
Mark right now every contest you enter you are entering against guys using 'crutches', many many guys. Over the years the contest sponsors have had a great many opportunities to 'bust' the cheaters b
I appreciate your post, MAL, thanks. My post was pretty much to say that if the sponsors allow unrestricted packet use at all times by all competitors as you propose, I would not be interested in pla
First, an issue of semantics. I don't use packet. I use telnet. Not many use packet any more... Second, to the issue at hand. Mark - if all single ops were permitted to use DX spotting assistance, ho
Yes, semantics...it isn't telnet that you're using, it's DX spotting. for more than just DX spotting. But you're right...I wonder how many newcomers even know what packet is! It isn't *always* the ca
This issue cannot be discussed to a solution... I will make the comment that to DQ a log because it LOOKS like he used assistance needs to be carefully considered... Let me set the stage here: I don'
Didn't we go through all of this back in October? (Déjà vu all over again?) You say: "You will get no help from the contest sponsors. Oh they say they aggressively pursue cheating but t
N2IC's hypothetical situation occurs often in DX contests. During the contest, someone will bootleg a rare DX callsign, and the generally few operators who work the pirate have no knowledge of its no
Perhaps I'm odd, but if I have only a small amount to participate in a contest, the absolute last thing I would want to do is click around listening to one agonizing packet pileup after another.... T
A lot of the discussion here is missing the point. It's actually pretty easy these days, as a contest adjudicator, to see if anyone is using packet. Here's an example (and I'm currently completing ad
W2UP: KM3T: Thanks Dave. What you say is right on the mark. W2UP: I don't think it's much of a question any more that a significant number of guys pointing, shooting, then logging, are not capable of
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The soul of a true DXer. 73, Bill W6WRT _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing list CQ-Contest@contesting.com http://list