[Top] [All Lists]

[CQ-Contest] Contest reports and awards (DXCC etc)

To: "Group VKCC" <vkcc@yahoogroups.com>,"Cq-Contest" <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Contest reports and awards (DXCC etc)
From: "Martin Luther" <luther7@bigpond.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 09:38:30 +1000
List-post: <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
A number of local contests here in VK/ZL have taken the view that
reports are irrelevant and we should just send serial numbers. I
recently received a request to upload a local contest log to LOTW as a
contact with me was required for a certificate.


To complete the log I inserted 59/599 into the sent exchange.


Subsequently I have thought some more about this and wonder what others
think of this situation. 


The ARRL DXCC relevant rule states:

4. Confirmation data for two-way communications must include the call
signs of both stations, the Entity name as shown in the DXCC List, mode,
and date, time and band. Except as permitted in Rule 1
<http://www.arrl.org/awards/dxcc/rules.html#si1> , cross-mode contacts
are not permitted for DXCC credits. Confirmations not containing all
required information may be rejected. 

The WAS rule is a little ambiguous as it mentions reports


Two-way communications must be established on amateur bands with each
state. Specialty awards and endorsements must be two-way (2X) on that
band and/or mode. There is no minimum signal report required. Any or all
bands may be used for general WAS. The District of Columbia may be
counted for Maryland.


Other awards sampled are similar so there doesn't appear to be a rules
requirement to exchange reports. Despite that I am still uncomfortable -
just getting old I guess!


So the only real requirement is to fill up all the boxes in my own
logging systems!


Is it ethical to log a report that was not given over the air although
the exchange of numbers established that communications did in fact take


An aside to those that argue we should drop the report. It is noticeable
where the report is dropped that there is a greater tendency to send
things like "vk1xxx ur 001" or "vk1xxx nr 001". Where I tried "vk1xxx
001" I mostly had to do a repeat - I settled on "vk1xxx 001 001" which
worked 95% of the time. I am quite content that the argument for 59 as a
prosign for the serial is correct. At least for "normal" operators - as
opposed to human contest machines Hi!


Martin VK7GN

 <mailto:VK7GN@Bigpond.com> VK7GN@Bigpond.com

Tel +61 3 62602600



CQ-Contest mailing list

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