[Cwo] CW open rules rev 5

[Alan Maenchen]

Hi Pete,

I understand.  It is possible to catch illegal use of packet/RBN, but as you
say, it isn't easy, and not full proof. So far as I know, it's always been
an honor system. I don't know of any contest that seriously looks for this
and dings people for cheating. In CQP we ignore it. The good news is that
for the vast majority, the honor system works quite well.  What I'm worried
about is a cry from the masses in that we're bucking a strong traditional
trend here by allowing it in the first place. Of course, I sort of enjoy
being a rebel some times.

Especially for this first running, I think keeping categories simple is
important. This is why I did the FAQ the way I did. By allowing entries as
S/A or M/S, I simply assume these are folks using packet and we can decide
later to identify them or not in the results. I think it will be an
interesting study.  Maybe I should strengthen the S/O statement.

BTW, I think CWO will likely be a very good venue to practice SO2R...
something I can do physically, but not mentally.  I agree that SO2R station
has a distinct advantage over SO1R, but so does a station with 6 over 6
compared to a dipole. Both are simply applied technology and $$. In some
cases those issues (and others) may allow splitting categories, but that can
become a problem as well.

Thanks,  Alan




On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 4:06 AM, Peter Chamalian <w1rm at arrl.net> wrote:

> I’m not sure how you can stop the use of Packet/RBN other than through log
> analysis and checking which seems to be a huge amount of work.  I would
> prefer to have an assisted category.
>
>
>
> By the same token, my pet peeve is SO2R and SO1R in the same category, but
> that’s another story…
>
>
>
> Pete, W1RM
>
>
>
> *From:* Alan Maenchen [mailto:ad6e at arrl.net]
> *Sent:* Saturday, April 23, 2011 9:03 PM
> *To:* cwo at kkn.net; Charles K. Epps
> *Subject:* [Cwo] CW open rules rev 5
>
>
>
> Please take a look at the attached rules.
> I've added an FAQ section and corrected a couple of small issues.
> If you can think of other FAQ items to add, please let me know.
>
> 1)  I'm still unsure about allowing packet/skimmer.  Please see the note in
> FAQ which makes me feel a bit more at ease with this decision. Do you agree?
> My thoughts is that any packet use could be identified in the results
> somehow .. maybe an asterisk.
>
> 2)  I didn't change the log submission text as Don wanted. This is because
> we need to identify what we want to do up front (now) and not put this off.
> Granted, there is some risk involved but I think it's manageable.
>
> If this is OK, I'm going to send it to the various logger vendors and
> request they implement CWO well before Aug. I have not asked N5KO to add
> this to the official Cabrillo web page yet. I hope it isn't necessary.
>
> Thanks & 73,  Alan  AD6E
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.kkn.net/pipermail/cwo/attachments/20110424/8e6fa2a0/attachment.html