Just a small observation Paul, but while I find your argument very
convincing...
Well, a few weeks back as you may recall, I asked the list members for a
"reality check" to make sure I was doing the right thing by submitting my
log for a certain state QSO Party as M/S -- since I made extensive use of
packet, and since this particular contest doesn't have an SOA category.
Although I felt entering M/S was most appropriate (and continue to do so),
you'd be surprised at how many responses along the lines of "what are you,
nutz?" I got from contesters who saw nothing wrong with my entering as SO --
despite packet use.
So clearly there remains a big difference of opinion, ethics, and philosophy
on the subject!
73, ron w3wn
-----Original Message-----
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 15:08:01 -0000
From: "Paul O'Kane" <pokane@ei5di.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] cheating with packet
To: "'Untitled'" <cq-contest@contesting.com>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Naumann" <w5ov@w5ov.com>
> In shack spotting by another is multi-op. (More than one operator!)
>
> Using packet is assisted.
>
> Big difference.
Let's try a reality check here.
In-shack spotting consists of real-time acceptance of
spotting assistance from one or more other operators.
It is indeed multi-op or, more accurately, multi-single.
The use of packet consists of real-time acceptance of
spotting assistance from one or more other operators.
It is multi-op or, more accurately, multi-single.
There is no difference - apart from the non-issue of the
location of the additional operators.
"Single op assisted" is a weasel way of describing
multi-single by anyone or any organisation that prefers
to ignore reality.
73,
Paul EI5DI
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|