The problem with this discussion is that it is based on two fallacies:
1) The only person capable of understanding the rules in their entirety is
the sponsor or the sponsor's appointed manager.
2) The rules are written in a mysterious or misleading way, further
contributing to #1.
Both are false.
The rules are intended to be clearly written so that anyone can understand
them. In most cases recently, things that are not said in the rules are
being imagined as possible since the rules don't clearly spell them out.
Specifically, this silly debate over what check one should sign in SS. The
same type of debate took place last spring over what power a DX station
should send in the ARRL DX contest. Nowhere in the rules is there any
mention of any penalty being assessed for just picking one (if you decide to
do so) that does not match the official year you were first licensed or in
the case of the DX contest, there is no penalty for not sending your actual
transmitter power or is there any mention of any need to certify anything.
The other part of the SS discussion that is bothersome is that the origins
of the exchange in SS is apparently not widely known. It is the history of
the ARRL that is also apparently being forgotten. While it may be less than
cool, and for some reason, the ARRL seems to want to put it behind them, the
American Radio Relay League was originally all about Relaying messages
(Radiograms)! The exchange in SS emulates the sending of these messages in
"standard" format.
The qso number represents the message number, the precedence (not precedent)
represents the priority of the message, your call is the originating
station, the check represents the count of words in the message, and your
section represents the originating location. Bottom line, the content is not
critical; the accurate copying of information is what is most important. All
the rules and penalties are focused on copying what it sent properly.
I am not against a "blog", and in fact, the CQWW has such a thing called the
CQWW Contest Handbook which was published on paper many years ago. It is
being updated and will eventually be published on the web.
Use some common sense, and stop imagining what might be intended or that
other things that are not spelled out are penalties.
73,
Bob W5OV
-----Original Message-----
From: Ev Tupis [mailto:w2ev@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 2:12 PM
To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Easy way to correct answer
----- Original Message ----
From: Mike K9MI k9mi@sbcglobal.net
But, what Hans did was correct and something that any of us
could have done, and then, no more guessing, you have the answer. Really no
need to speculate on an issue when you can just email the contest
director,who I believe is still Dan Henderson, N1ND.
---------------------------
I agree. I wasn't picking on him in any way. He asked the right question
of the right person. Imagine though...asking the wrong person, and getting
an opinion rather than a ruling. That can be anywhere from just annoying to
outright disqualifying.
In a blog model, the person who is responsible for the content of the blog
is clearly identified and what they say is clearly visible and searchable.
It is authoritative within that context.
By visiting the "ARRL Contests" blog (if it existed), Tom Hogerty would be
identified as the Blogger, along with contact information...along with all
of the rulings/interpretations from all past Contest administrators
(including Dan Henderson, who would now be shown as the blogger for the
"ARRL Regulatory" blog if it existed).
The correct answer would be searchable there. If it didn't exist, then Tom
could be contacted...provide clarification to the inquirer...and update the
Blog so that there would be little need for a second call on the same topic
(unless the ruling was ambiguous). Blogging can actually reduce workload,
if done with a purpose in mind.
Anyway...I think we get the drift.
73,
Ev, W2EV
_______________________________________________
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
|