[ILQSO] LOGS

[James Funk]

I also have nothing whatsoever against FT8. I find it rather interesting. However, I have not seen that anyone can satisfactoryly  use it in this particular event.

Sent from my iPhone
"He is no fool who gives up what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose." -- Jim Elliot

> On Nov 30, 2023, at 5:01 PM, K9LY - Joe <k9ly at arrl.net> wrote:
> 
> In my opinion: If the mode used for a contact can't convey the contest exchange required by ILQP rules, then no valid QSO is possible in that mode. This would justify saying "no FT8" or any other mode that's incapable of sending and receiving the contest exchange.
> 
> I have nothing against FT8, by the way.
> 
> 73,
> Joe K9LY
> 
> 
> On Thu Nov 30 13:14:56 EST 2023 ilqso at mailman.qth.net wrote:
> 
> >Other observations:  We had a couple of logs that included FT8 >contacts. I see no reasonable way to include these in an ILQP log >though they are not "prohibited".  One log included the signal report >received instead of the QTH.  This caused considerable angst with the >log-checking software until I simply deleted them.  Another log >included a QTH that was obviously looked up post-contest (see Rant >above).    Any suggestions going forward?  Simply say, "no FT8"? Or >just keep the rules as they are ("each contact must include a call >worked, signal report received and QTH received")?
> ______________________________________________________________
> ILQSO mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/ilqso
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:ILQSO at mailman.qth.net
> 
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html