To: | dezrat1242@ispwest.com |
---|---|
Subject: | Re: [CQ-Contest] Stimulating Participation was: LimitedAntenna Height Category |
From: | Pete Smith <n4zr@contesting.com> |
Date: | Tue, 30 Nov 2004 12:34:44 -0500 |
List-post: | <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com> |
I acknowledge that ARRL would be "letting down their guard" to some extent
if they allowed block transfers of matched CQWW QSOs, but at some point in
any such exercise I think you have to ask how much you are giving away for
the last 1 percent of security. After all, how likely is it that somebody
would cook both ends of a QSO in CQWW and then have both logs sent in,
simply to fake out the DXCC system? I suppose you could even carry it a
step further and have some internal rules about not crediting QSOs where
both ends are uniques, or perhaps other checks could be accomplished. Its worth remembering that ARRL used to credit ARRL DX Contest QSOs for DXCC, if both logs were sent in and matched. To my knowledge, it was workload, rather than any particular scandal(s), that brought the end of that practice. Has the morality of the amateur community really declined so much that ARRL no longer dares even consider such a thing? 73, Pete N4ZR 10:59 AM 11/30/2004, you wrote: On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 10:46:57 -0500, Pete Smith wrote:
|
Previous by Date: | Re: [CQ-Contest] Stimulating Participation was: LimitedAntenna HeightCategory, K0HB |
---|---|
Next by Date: | Re: [CQ-Contest] Stimulating Participation was: LimitedAntennaHeightCategory, Warren C. Stankiewicz |
Previous by Thread: | Re: [CQ-Contest] Stimulating Participation was: Limited AntennaHeight Category, Bill Turner |
Next by Thread: | Re: [CQ-Contest] Stimulating Participation was: Limited AntennaHeight Category, Bill Turner |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |