We really have a problem.
This discussion should be taking place in the fall, not in the spring.
Also, the key to understanding the importance of what year you send as
your check is that the actual number does not matter to anyone - not even
to the league. Just pick two numbers and send them for the entire contest.
Before you send any replies re-stating something like "but the rule
says"... please refer to my statement that the actual number does not
matter to anyone so don't bother replying. But, then why does the rule say
that? Again, it does not matter so drop it, please! The check is simply a
number that represents what used to be the word count in a "radiogram"
which is what SS is emulating. Again, the actual number does not matter
and no one verifies that what you send is actually anyone's first year of
anything - guess why? Because *it does not matter*!
Also, we do not need to go to a 4 year check - 3 digits will suffice for
the next 999 years.
73,
Bob W5OV
>
> On Apr 9, 2009, at 4:01 AM, Shelby Summerville wrote:
>
>> Tom Frenaye wrote: "It matters. The rules say so."
>> And the rules also say: "The last 2 digits of the year of first
>> license for
>> either the operator or the station.", along with "The same Check
>> must be
>> used the entire contest." Why is it so important to enforce one
>> portion of
>> the rules, and not another? IMHO, the contest manager is responsible
>> for
>> enforcing the rules, as they are written at the time of the contest,
>> not
>> being able to "pick and choose" which ones will be enforced?
>> Inconsistent
>> enforcement of rules, regardless of the venue, only causes
>> frustration for
>> the participants.
>
> (speaking from my own experience)
>
> Sponsors would seem to have a different outlook and a different
> purpose for their involvement in contesting.
>
> At least from my perspective, the idea is to get as many people to
> participate as possible.
>
> From the perspective of many contesters, a goal is to disqualify as
> many people as possible.
>
> Let's look at the rule as you posted.
>
>>> "The last 2 digits of the year of first license for
>>> either the operator or the station.", along with "The same Check
>>> must be
>>> used the entire contest."
>
>
>
> Right away you can see that they are not overly strict on the whole
> thing. Otherwise there would be no second sentence. Strict
> interpretation of the rules would have only one of two possible
> numbers. Strict interpretation would mean that each op would have to
> send in proof of their initial licensing or the initial licensing of
> the station they are using. Anything else makes it an unverifiable rule.
>
> Since people like to discuss how rules are interpreted, in the event
> of say a club station, they often use callsigns of honored SK's. Is
> the date when the SK was first licensed, or is it when it is
> transferred over to a trustee? Or is it the first licensing of the
> Trustee? If the SK, what if you can't find out that date. No
> contesting for a contest with that exchange?
>
> For all that matter, the rules state "first license". They don't say
> what license! Is that a drivers license? An Ohio plumber's license?
>
> The year of licensing? According to what calendar?
>
> N3LI's rule of rules: Give me a rule, and I can destroy it in seconds.
> The same with the rewrite....
>
> The exchange as it is, is two numbers. In order to come up with those
> two numbers, they use criteria of when an Op or station was first
> licensed. They furthermore state that the same check be used
> throughout the entire contest. That second statement is actually the
> important one. you have to be consistent. Two numbers. Consistently.
>
> Hans' tactic of changing his numbers every year is fine by me. After
> all, I am more interested in logging accuracy than verification of
> that year of first licensing. And I don't consider anything autofilled
> as actually exchanged, be it an automatically entered 599, or an
> exchange you got last year, or a section that the computer insists the
> other Op is working at.
>
>> IMHO, the contest manager is responsible for
>> enforcing the rules, as they are written at the time of the contest,
>> not
>> being able to "pick and choose" which ones will be enforced?
>
>
> It's a matter of actually trying to have a contest, or writing rules
> till the end of the earth. See my rule of rules above. We have to be
> able to see the intent of the rules. In this case, the intent is
> pretty clear.
>
>
> Case note. A year or two ago, I re-wrote the PAQSO Party rules. I
> added a few, clarified others, added specific definitions of just
> about everything I could. By the time I was finished, I took the one
> page of rules we had and expanded it to something like 13 pages. Yet
> not too long afterwards, I got called out for the rules not being
> clear enough. At some point, it has to be the fault of someone else.
> Most everyone else just loved them.
>
> One of my favorite parts of the rewrite was that the rules used to
> have frequencies of operation. They were indeed meant as a guideline.
> But every year someone tried to say that they meant that they were the
> only frequencies you could operate on. So I ended up calling them
> "suggested frequencies". Just like when you look at a can of
> vegetables, and they show the veggies, and maybe a plate with a steak
> on it. They put "suggested serving" so that nobody thinks a plate and
> a steak are going to pop out of the can when it is opened. 8^)
>
>
>
> -73 de Mike N3LI -
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|