I've been struggling over this one for the past two days. Here's my
answer:
If I were asked this question by the sponsors of the SS, I'd probably
suggest that a liberal interpretation of the rules was in order. I'd
probably
take the attitude that it doesn't really matter to me whether someone
used
his real check or some other number.
If I were beaten by one contact in a contest where the leader took a
liberal interpretation and sent 55 on CW where his real check was 01,
I would probably not complain bitterly and suggest that the leader be
disqualified for violating the rules.
But if I were the sponsor of the contest and I received a complaint
from
a second place operator who might have been in first place but for the
liberal interpretation that the leader took, I'd be forced to
interpret the
rules strictly, no matter what my personal opinion was.
So here I am, not in the position of a sponsor, but in the position of
a
friend being asked for advice prior to the contest while you still
have
choices. Honestly my best advice as a friend is that you should avoid
being challenged by second place; make certain you follow the strict
interpretation of the rules so that you will never be put in the
embarrassing position of being disqualified for such a pitifully tiny
issue.
KR6X
----- Original Message -----
From: <al_lorona@agilent.com>
To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 5:34 PM
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Using a Bogus Check
>
> Hi, Everybody,
>
> I have a confession to make. A couple of SS's ago, I used a
different check
> than my correct check. On purpose. I think I used something like
'55' in the
> CW SS, and '00' in the phone SS. Why did I do this? I guess I
thought it
> would be cool to try out another number. Or to alleviate boredom. I
don't
> know.
>
> I had talked it over with a friend before the contest and we came to
the
> conclusion that it would not be against the spirit of the rules to
do so.
> After all, the SS check is only a simulation of a real check anyway,
which
> of course is the word count of a message. And it's not the same as
changing
> your precedence or your section, which would have very serious
consequences
> for you and for others.
>
> I suspect that some folks couldn't care less what check I sent,
while others
> may take exception to the practice. I want to hear all sides,
because I'm
> thinking of doing it again.
>
> Regards,
>
> Al W6LX
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>From Peter Grillo, Sr." <ah3c@frii.com Mon Apr 29 12:33:38 2002
From: Peter Grillo, Sr." <ah3c@frii.com (Peter Grillo, Sr.)
Subject: [CQ-Contest] 'bogus' check
References: <000701c1ee37$4525c640$6400a8c0@workstation1>
<011001c1eeae$55f67560$934afea9@TL01>
Message-ID: <002a01c1ef71$b5b0f2a0$0100a8c0@oemcomputer>
Mark,
Great idea! You are welcome to share Buds or Beaujolais and use my '58
check any time. I'll even do mushroom/swiss omelets for the Sunday
doldroms. Who knows, contesting from home might even become fun enough for
me to get back in the fray....We could set some sort of record in the
revised "A" category: Annebriated.
73,
Pete, W0RTT
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Beckwith" <swca@swbell.net>
To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 28, 2002 6:15 AM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] 'bogus' check
> I think if Al wants to send "55" as his check but it is not the year he
was
> first licensed, he must first find an op who was licensed in 55 like
Charles
> there. Charlie goes to Al's house, drinks the beer and eats the
sandwiches,
> and Al enter Multi-Single.
>
> Mark, N5OT
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
>
|