CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] No more Unassisted in ARRL VHF Contests?

To: Dave Lawley <dave@g4buo.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] No more Unassisted in ARRL VHF Contests?
From: "Martin , LU5DX" <lu5dx@lucg.com.ar>
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2014 20:44:55 -0300
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
As far as the facts of cheating with unfair assistance  and ghost ops
are concerned, yes.

73,

Martin, LU5DX


On Sun, Nov 16, 2014 at 8:00 PM,  <dave@g4buo.com> wrote:
> But if your only concern is cheating between unassisted and assisted that
> could addressed by the same solution!
>
> Therefore no need to combine the categories.
>
> 73, Dave G4BUO
>
> On Sun, November 16, 2014 10:51 pm, Martin , LU5DX wrote:
>> That can easily be solved.
>> Video/Audio recording for high profile entrants posted to YouTube
>> right after the contest, or even better live video streaming (audio could
>> be delayed a few mins respect to real time if needed) Pretty simple
>> nowadays.
>>
>> 73,
>>
>>
>> Martin, LU5DX
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Nov 16, 2014 at 4:36 PM,  <dave@g4buo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> So Doug, by the same logic do you believe ARRL and perhaps other
>>> contest sponsors should remove the distinction between single and
>>> multi-op since it is hard for the checkers to tell the difference?
>>>
>>> Maybe some "SOAB" entrants already have several people in the shack
>>> helping them find and work mults. So logically, ARRL will have to remove
>>>  the distinction between single and multi op because it is hard to
>>> police.
>>>
>>> Dave G4BUO
>>>
>>>
>>> KR2Q Wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> ..... But from a practical perspective (perspective of log
>>>> checking), there is good reason to remove the separation.  I mean, why
>>>>  have separate categories if the log checkers can't actually verify
>>>> those using assistance in a subtle manner, but in a way that can
>>>> really impact their final score?
>>>>
>>>> This is my 2 cents and certainly is not a known reflection of what
>>>> the contest sponsors may be thinking (but which at least one has
>>>> clearly been surveying).
>>>>
>>>> de Doug KR2Q
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>