[Top] [All Lists]

[CQ-Contest] CQWW and Signal Reports

Subject: [CQ-Contest] CQWW and Signal Reports
From: paul@ei5di.com (Paul O'Kane)
Date: Wed Oct 30 20:45:15 2002
KG5U quoted EI5DI as saying -

>> In the major contests, QSO rate is everything.

Hi Dale,

Let's be specific here - you may not have understood the point of my
argument, as you've quoted the above sentence in isolation.

My point was that RS(T) has no meaning, significance or value in CQWW.
If you have evidence (not opinions) to the contrary, then let's hear it.

> if rate is everything, then why would someone intentionally throw a curve to
> unwary participants by giving an incorrect and incomplete exchange?

Where's your evidence?  I responded to 300 contesters who were
perfectly happy with the exchange.  They're professionals - they
took everything I threw at them.  Not a single one asked for a
report, not a single one sounded "unwary".  My log will show
59 sent and 59 received for all QSOs - because that's what the
software inserted.

They saved time and I saved time - looks like a win/win situation to me.

>rules say the exchange comprises the RS(T) and zone; not 'thank you' and

Thanks - I've read the rules.  You will understand that I'm trying to get
them updated by drawing attention to one aspect of them.  You will know
also, that no-one loses points in CQWW for logging an incorrect report
- they're not cross-checked.

>When the receiving operator doesn't hear what he/she expects to hear, it
>causes disruption to the flow of operating--it doesn't matter if the logging
>software automatically puts in a default RS(T).

You may be speaking for yourself, but this did not apply to anyone
I worked - they took it in their stride.  We all know, apart from
those in denial, that the only thing that matters in CQWW is the
exchange of callsigns. With few exceptions (the zone can't always be
determined from the callsign) the software does everything and
whether you actually hear the exchange makes no difference.

>I believe change should be sought administratively through means external to
>the actual contest operation.

So do I, and I've tried this approach for several years. If you check
the archives of this mailing list, you'll see some of the evidence.
However, it hasn't worked, so I'm trying a new approach. This one may
not work either, but at least I'll have tried it.

>Why screw things up for others?

Why the righteous indignation? The evidence so far is that it's no
big deal to the people concerned - the ones I worked last weekend.

Paul EI5DI

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