Paul,
Yes, you are right, the RS(T) is redundant in a contest situation. (And
let's not hijack the thread with THAT discussion!)
Regardless, the rules say you send an RS(T) as part of the exchange.
So if someone chooses not to send it, technically, they are in violation of
the rules. Although I don't agree with some others commenting on this that
this automatically merits a DQ, but certainly the committee should have a
word with them about it.
But... are you saying that those that flout the rules should be commended
for having "common sense"? That way leads to anarchy.
Until the rule is changed, if ever, send the exchange right. Even if you
don't like it.
73
-----Original Message-----
From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
[mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com]On Behalf Of Paul O'Kane
Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2008 4:20 PM
To: CQ Contest
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Improper WPX Exchanges
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve London" <n2icarrl@gmail.com>
> Is anyone else bothered by serious WPX competitors not
> giving out a signal report ?
Why should anyone worry? Sure, "it's in the rules", but
why is it in the rules when
1. It is always 59
2. Your software has already inserted 59
3. Even if it's not 59, you might as well leave it as 59,
because it is not cross-checked.
4. You will not lose points by logging an "incorrect" report.
The mindless repetition of 59 is a handicap applied to all
entrants.
Rather than getting indignant about the stations that leave
it out, get indignant with the inertia of contest sponsors.
Asking for a rule change does not work. Demonstrating that
the rule is redundant may work. 4O3A, ZW2D and N7DD should
be commended for their common sense.
73,
Paul EI5DI
_______________________________________________
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
|