I am throwing this out there for comment. In SS, I worked a number of ops who did not send their callsign as part of the exchange. I found this to be very frustrating for several reasons, namely (1)
I heard the same thing from a few long time players with pretty big scores. I will admit to having my macro set up wrong to start but fixed it not long in. 1st SS CW in a long time. A warning for non
Agreed! I put this up on eHam yesterday and hadn't gotten around to starting a thread here. They didn't get an advantage from me as the lack of the call often required a repeat for me to get the Chec
Yes, just as there should be a penalty (on ARRL) for not including the callsign as a Cabrillo exchange element, between the precedence and the check. Why encourage redundancy in contest exchanges? I
Hi George, This question opened quite the hornet's nest the last time it was posed... The rules say what must be exchanged. (Serial no., precedence, callsign, check, section). Minus the example, you
I'll offer a possible explanation . . . I did a very quick setup of N1MM at my home station to make a few Qs on Sunday afternoon. I kept getting people asking for my check. After a few more QSOs, I r
I am throwing this out there for comment. In SS, I worked a number of ops who did not send their callsign as part of the exchange. I found this to be very frustrating for several reasons, namely (1)
Hi George If they didn't send their call in the exchange, I just deleted the Q as it was invalid. I don't know what else to do because when running, you send their call, then your exchange. It would
I penalize them by using the AltW key. Same thing for those that only ID every tenth Q. I did not get a complete exchange so they are not in my log. They did get a complete exchange so I am probably
Yes, you should ask him to repeat the exchange and if he still doesn't include his call, ask for it. If a bunch do it, that's a penalty, IMHO. 73, Gerry, K8GT == I am throwing this out there for comm
Yes .. I agree. Only 2, out a (mere) 409 ... but I took time and listened, and they spent far more time repeating reports than they saved by cutting callsign .. However, I do remember the 80s, early
How will the sponsors know if they did or not? unless someone turns them in. Then of course whats to stop someone from then saying they did not when they did just to get them penalized. I can't see i
I agree with this one... threw off my timing too. Not the best practice for many reasons. 73, Tim / N6WIN. _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing list CQ-Contest@contestin
Chances are that he had alot of folks ask for fills thus negating any advantage. 73, Guy, N7ZG _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing list CQ-Contest@contesting.com http:/
I don't think so. He must have sent the callsign at some point, right? (That only seems like I'm joking.) I don't believe the contest sponsor has ever enforced an exchange element required sending or
In SS, a station running (keeping the frequency for now) misses a golden opportunity to advertise when he leaves the call out of the exchange. It seems a no brainer to me. Send the call in the order
I can't find on the ARRL site where the rules say one thing and the example another. Both are exactly the same in this canonical document: http://www.arrl.org/sweepstakes I still don't see where the
I'm pretty sure that it has been mentioned before, yet maybe not with this particular spin: The original and main thrust of SS is to emulate or replicate the message exchange of a radio gram. Thus t
My macro was set wrong in the beginning as well. Sorry for the 1st 10 or so QSOs. I also fixed the double-leading T on the serial number... not necessary. 73, Gerry W1VE _____________________________