CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] CQ 160m contest-vs-DXCC rule problem

To: <rjairam@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQ 160m contest-vs-DXCC rule problem
From: <contesting@w2irt.net>
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2020 00:09:05 -0500
List-post: <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
From: rjairam@gmail.com <rjairam@gmail.com> 
>>For the record, DXAC recommended a distance limit the both times they were 
>>asked to evaluate this rule. That would prevent "propagation shopping" as you 
>>call it. Two wrongs don't make a right.

[pjd] While I'm in favor of remote receive-only, the fact remains that it is 
not acceptable and anybody submitting such a contact is breaking the rule, thus 
rendering those QSOs invalid for DXCC credit. I'm not debating the merits of 
that pro or con.

My issue also isn't with CQ saying remote receive-only is OK for contesting 
within certain limited parameters. That's their call and it's my call if I 
choose to use it, within the scope of the contest rules.

My issue is that it's just too easy for someone to cheat with an invalid DXCC 
submission, and I'd wager 99% of those who do submit an ineligible QSO don't 
even realize that is the case. 

Perhaps the League should have a check box in the LoTW interface for 160m 
submissions where you agree that no remote rx-only technology was employed, or 
add fields in Cabrillo and ADIF that allow the contest op to state if that 
technology was used, and if so, those Qs would not be uploaded automatically to 
LoTW. Not a perfect solution, but a way to keep honest ops honest, at least?

_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

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