so.......send a real sig report?
THATS THE ANSWER ----SEND A REAL REPORT.
-----Original Message-----
>From: Al Lorona <alorona@sbcglobal.net>
>Sent: Dec 10, 2008 7:12 PM
>To: CQ-Contest@contesting.com
>Subject: [CQ-Contest] Signal report
>
>
>What is the purpose of the signal report in the exchange for the ARRL 160m
>contest?
>
>That is the question posed by my 10-year-old son after he wandered into the
>shack as I began operating last weekend and noticed that my logging software
>always automatically filled in the RST as '599'.
>
>Poor guy. He stood thinking about it for a long time, then finally he said,
>"Dad, that's like answering '10' every time someone asked you how old you
>were, no matter how old you were, even if you were an old man!"
>
>A few contacts later, he said, "Dad, you could barely hear that guy, but you
>sent him a 5NN. That's lying!"
>
>If we are reasonable and fair-minded we must finally face facts and eliminate
>the farce that is RST exchanges in contests.
>
>If we are going to require sending a literal '5NN' as part of the exchange,
>couldn't we at least use those kilowatt-hours consumed by our radios and
>amplifiers to send something halfway useful? Even a piece of trivia such as
>your name, a serial number, or the temperature in the shack is less futile
>than '5NN'. Or eliminate it from the exchange entirely, no?
>
>Even Field Day has it over the ARRL 160 in this regard. And it's not even an
>official contest.
>
>Apparently, the movers and shakers of the contesting world all read this
>reflector... maybe they will be persuaded to make contests such as these more
>sensible to future contesters like my son.
>
>If you are not in favor of replacing '5NN' with something arguably more
>'useful', why not?
>
>If you are in favor of keeping the RST as part of the exchange, how would you
>feel about a contester who got on the ARRL 160 and actually started sending
>realistic RST reports like '439', '569', and so forth? My guess is that that
>would irk most contesters-- but don't let me put words in your mouth.
>(I presume this only because it seems that for any issue raised here,
>consensus always dictates the best practice during a contest, and the sending
>of realistic signal reports seems to me to be so far out of the norm that it
>would disrupt the flow in the same way that many other idiosyncratic operating
>procedures, additions, omissions, etc., have been deemed to do the same in
>recent posts.)
>
>Thanks very much for reading.
>
>Al W6LX
>5NN LAX
>
>_______________________________________________
>CQ-Contest mailing list
>CQ-Contest@contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
Joe Hypnarowski
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|