If we're going to make a big deal about what check is sent, then we should
find a way to verify signal strength really is 599 in other contests, no?
After all, the rules do say RST and not some phony made up RST, no?
Unless there's a hue and cry about 599...
me: agn?
you: ....n 03
me: cl?
you: W.....N
me: sri QSB agn?
you: ..3W...
me: W3W?
you: W3W....
me: W3WN?
you: R R R
me: 5nn 04.
...I don't see any need to discuss the veritability of checks.
And I'm NOT arguing for valid RSTs, either. Only making the point.
73, kelly
ve4xt
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Notarius W3WN" <wn3vaw@verizon.net>
To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 10:29 PM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Sweepstakes: Should I be penalized for getting my
license in 2000?
> Jeff, FWIW, you are absolutely correct. That's what the rules say, that's
> what's supposed to be done.
>
> The reality is that some people don't follow that rule. Some like K0HB
> (not
> to pick on him, but he did own up to it, which is more than a lot do)
> change
> it each year -- or even between CW & Phone -- so that you have to actually
> copy it, not "remember" it via a software database of one sort or another.
> Some go with the year they got a particular call, or were relicensed, or
> whatever. Some club station ops go with the year THEY were first
> licensed,
> not the year the CLUB was first licensed... or the year the club got their
> current call, etc. and so forth.
>
> The reality is that the log checkers at ARRL may not have a way of knowing
> what year you were first licensed, and since they don't consider that
> significant, they instead ensure that if I say I worked you, my log shows
> the check you sent, whatever it is.
>
> I could just imagine the outcry if they DQ'd or check logged a decent
> number
> of logs on the grounds that they sent the wrong check. Wonder how many
> contesters would threaten to sue? (BTW, I know a great lawyer, and he's
> licensed, too... but I digress). So I doubt that it would happen.
>
> We should not be disregarding the rules, but the reality is that this one
> isn't strictly enforced, if at all.
>
> 73, ron w3wn
>
> -----Original Message-----
> Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 18:45:27 -0500
> From: "Jeff Maass" <jmaass@k8nd.com>
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Sweepstakes: Should I be penalized
> forgettingmylicense in 2000?
> To: "'Zack Widup'" <w9sz@prairienet.org>, "'John Geiger'"
> <johngeig@yahoo.com>
> Cc: 'Shelby Summerville' <k4ww@arrl.net>, 'CQ-Contest'
> <CQ-Contest@contesting.com>
>
> Zack:
>
> So, we can disregard specific rules when we want?
>
> It's says "Last two digits of the year first licensed." If you select a
> number combination that's easier to send or copy without errors, you are
> in
> violation of the rules, and I would argue should your entry should be
> placed
> in the "checklog" pile without fail.
>
> To do otherwise would be to encourage "gaming" the rules. Everyone might
> pick "73" for a check.
>
> (I'll be active in Phone SS from the Very Rare section "Southern
> Netherlands
> Antilles
> (SNA)".
>
> 73, Jeff K8ND
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
>> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Zack Widup
>> Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 6:14 PM
>> To: John Geiger
>> Cc: Shelby Summerville; CQ-Contest
>> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Sweepstakes: Should I be penalized
>> forgettingmylicense in 2000?
>>
>>
>> The section where you are located is used as a multiplier in
>> calculating your score.
>>
>> The check is not used in calculating your score; it is just a
>> number you need to copy accurately as it was sent. It
>> doesn't even enter into a category in comparing scores, as
>> the "A", B"", "Q" etc. are. So it is in fact just a number
>> and as far as I'm concerned just needs to be copied
>> accurately. The only impact it cold have on your score is
>> when you don't copy it correctly.
>>
>> Maybe we should change this; in addition to a clean sweep,
>> you could get a mug for copying all years in the check from
>> say 1920 to 2006. :-)
>>
>> 73, Zack W9SZ
>>
>> On Wed, 8 Nov 2006, John Geiger wrote:
>>
>> > Exactly. Why not just change the section you send every year. I
>> > would probably get alot more calls sending NT or NL than OK.
>> >
>> > 73s John W5TD
>> >
>> > --- Shelby Summerville <k4ww@arrl.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > > K0HB wrote; "Check variable from year to year"
>> > >
>> > > IMHO, unless the "last two digits of the year you were first
>> > > licensed);" is also "variable", there is no option in
>> the rules for
>> > > the check to be "variable"?
>> > >
>> > > >From the rules: "4.4. Check (the last two digits of
>> > > the year you were first
>> > > licensed);"
>> > >
>> > > C'Ya, Shelby - K4WW
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|