But if it doesn't matter, and can't be enforced, why put it in the rules?
Why not have the rules state:
"The check is any 2 digit number the operator chooses, which must stay
consistent throughout the contest?" That way the rules would be consistent
with the ARRL's way of actually running the contest.
73s John AA5JG
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 1:24 PM, Kelly Taylor <theroadtrip@mts.net> wrote:
> The ARRL recognizes its rule is ambiguous but also recognizes that it
> simply
> doesn't matter. It matters not one whit if the check is legitimate or made
> up: unlike a radiogram, an exchange is not about the actual contents of the
> exchange, it's about testing the ability to copy the contents of the
> exchange. (Unless it's WW, when you don't even have to copy anything but
> the
> call.)
>
> The ARRL and its volunteer log checkers do not have the ability to verify
> that checks are accurate, nor do they care to. The only thing they care
> about is this: did your partner in the QSO copy what you sent and did you
> copy what he sent. Yes. Good. Next Q please.
>
> As I pointed out, the rule doesn't even specify AMATEUR RADIO licence.
> We've
> taken it by osmosis to mean that, but the rule clearly does not state which
> kind of licence.
>
> Here is what it would take before anybody could even remotely consider an
> inaccurate check a rules violation: we'd need a volunteer to stand up and
> say, 'Yes, I will do a painstaking search of all global licence databases,
> comparing not only callsigns and names but cross-referencing similar names
> and addresses for every one of the 1,500 operators who enter SS every year
> (not to mention those that play but do not enter).'
>
> In that case, look for your 2011 SS plaque sometime in the year 2025.
>
> These arguments come up every year because some people can't seem to accept
> that some things really matter and some things really don't.
>
> 73, kelly
> ve4xt
>
> Ps: I'm with Vlad on the issue of remembering.
>
> On 11/10/10 12:02 PM, "Vladimir Sidorov" <vs_otw@rogers.com> wrote:
>
> > This topic, as well as some others, would never come up again if contest
> > sponsors themselves would simply follow up rules. What we actually have
> by
> > now?
> >
> > - SS. The year of the first license as a part of the exchange is clearly
> put
> > into the rules. But the sponsors say, well, the requirement is like this
> but
> > you can use any other figure you like...
> >
> > - CQ WW. The exchange includes a zone. But there are comments from the
> log
> > checkers, you know what, the zone is not checked during logs'
> > verification...
> >
> > Log checkers, contest sponsors should realize that any statement like
> that
> > can not only confuse people. It is also a clear provocation for them to
> > think, OK, if this requirement is not that strict, what other rules'
> > violations would also be OK?
> >
> > A rule is a rule. Period. Any question about contests' rules should be
> > answered clearly, please go ahead and read the rules. In our particular
> > cases, send your license's year and your zone. No tolerance.
> >
> > And just a remark, from the bottom of my heart, I cannot believe that
> people
> > don't remember the year of their first license...
> >
> > 73,
> > Vladimir VE3IAE
> >
> > ---
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> May I respectfully suggest checking the archives on this one?
> >>
> >> Zack is right: even as quoted by Nate, the rule doesn't even specify
> >> amateur
> >> licence.
> >>
> >> However, if you check the archives, the ruling from the ARRL has been
> >> consistent: as long as your exchange remains stable throughout the
> contest
> >> period, it doesn't matter if you use the first year YOU were licensed,
> the
> >> first year your host was licensed or the year you lost your virginity.
> >>
> >> With callsign lapses, hiatuses from the hobby, moving and any number of
> >> reasons, the ARRL simply has no way of knowing when each of the 1500 or
> so
> >> ops every year were first licensed, nor do they have any incentive or
> >> reason
> >> to audit every 'check' for accuracy (other than that received exchanges
> >> match sent exchanges).
> >>
> >> Use what makes sense for you. When I have guest opped and used the
> host's
> >> call, I've used the check he's used in the past. (Cuts down on fill
> >> requests
> >> from stations using a database.) I use my own check at home. (Again,
> cuts
> >> down on fill requests.)
> >>
> >> The ARRL has even gone so far as to say if you wish to pick two random
> >> numbers (does anyone really think that EVERYONE sending the cute and
> very
> >> easily read '73' was actually licensed in 1973?), go right ahead.
> >>
> >> This really is another one of those topics that comes up EVERY SINGLE
> >> YEAR,
> >> isn't it?
> >>
> >> 73, kelly
> >> ve4xt
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 11/9/10 4:57 AM, "Nate Bargmann" <n0nb@n0nb.us> wrote:
> >>
> >>> * On 2010 08 Nov 20:37 -0600, Zack Widup wrote:
> >>>> The rules don't specify for the check the year you were first licensed
> >>>> as a
> >>>> WHAT. I suppose I could legally use the year I was first licensed as a
> >>>> Novice, as a General, as an Extra, or maybe even the year I was first
> >>>> licensed as W9SZ. They are all different.
> >>>
> >>> As I read the rule:
> >>>
> >>> 4.4.1. The last 2 digits of the year of first license for either the
> >>> operator or the station.
> >>>
> >>> it seems rather clear to me that if I am operating my own station then
> >>> it is the year I was first licensed and that is what I've used each
> time
> >>> I've operated solo or used my call in a multi effort.
> >>>
> >>> If I were operating the club station, that could get a bit more sticky,
> >>> do I choose the year our club first obtained a club license (somewhat
> >>> recently) or the year the SK's call we now hold was first licensed (mid
> >>> 1920's)? I know which I would choose.
> >>>
> >>>> But I've been sticking with the same year for a long time. It's
> >>>> engrained
> >>>> into me so I just automatically send it now.
> >>>
> >>> I think it's most important that it not change throughout the period of
> >>> SS.
> >>>
> >>> 73, de Nate >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|