Hi Barry,
BTW, nice finally working you in the contest lack weekend. This winter
marks my first semi-serious effort at 160 operating, and every Q is a bonus.
It's also giving me some ideas on how to work on the antenna system in the
spring when the weather breaks, but I digress...
I agree with your basic idea at the end of your post... I simply feel that
it should be extended to anyone who feels in principle this way about open
logs.
Simply put, give every entrant the option to decline to have their log made
public after the contest committee has finished processing them. Make it an
"opt out" checkbox, if one would wish -- by default, you agree to have your
log made public and must actively choose to have your log posted.
This would encourage operators to submit their logs. And, more submitted
logs gives the log checkers more data to use to catch "cheaters" (amongst
the many tools the checkers need, but that's another story). And finally,
it would give some small measure of protection to those who consider their
logs (and implied strategies) their "trade secrets."
Thoughts?
73, ron w3wn
-----Original Message-----
From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
[mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com]On Behalf Of Barry
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2009 11:46 AM
To: CQ-Contest@contesting. com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] [Re: CQWW CW & 6Y1V Logs]
I don't see the problem with open logs, unless you have something to
hide, and it isn't necessarily cheating. What you want to keep private
may be perfectly legal, such as your "secret strategy."
Regarding operating from a potential multiplier and publicly announcing
you're not going to submit your log actually enhances the ability for
others to pad their logs with a 6Y QSO.
How about this... if 6Y1V wants to put in a big contest effort, but not
have his logs made public, make a deal with the CQWW Committee to submit
the log as a check-log, with the understanding it will remain unpublished.
Barry W2UP
David Gilbert wrote:
> I don't think there's anything "wrong" with KY1V deciding not to submit
> his log ... for any reason. I do, however, think it's misguided and
> inconsistent of him to make a public spectacle of it in order to decry
> the presumption of guilt as his rationale for doing so, when the log
> checking process itself involves far more presumption of guilt than does
> making logs public.
>
> 73,
> Dave AB7E
>
>
>
> Michael Coslo wrote:
>
>> Why on earth would anyone even complain about David not submitting? He
>> doesn't like one of the rules, acted completely within his rights as
>> an Amateur radio operator by operating in the contest, didn't submit
>> his log, and just mentioned it here, with his reason.
>> -73 de Mike N3LI -
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
> Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.16/1925 - Release Date:
1/30/2009 7:37 AM
>
>
--
Barry Kutner, W2UP Newtown, PA
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|