The intent of the rule is to substitute a meaningful number in place of the
check (count) in a message. The last 2 digits of the year you were licensed
(or the station was first licensed) is certainly meaningful.
However... as a practical matter, there's no real hard and fast way to
verify that the check you use actually is the aforementioned year. Yes,
today there are plenty of databases around, but until the PC become so
prevalent, it was very difficult if not near impossible.
And some people who've had gaps may misunderstand and use the year they got
their current license, not their original. Or the current operators of a
club station (such as my old college club) may pick the wrong year... such
as the year the club station got it's current call, not the year it was
originally licensed -- there's big difference between 12 & 72, after all!
So... as a practical matter, and especially since it doesn't directly affect
the scoring, it's not critical what number you use for the check. So long
as you use the same number throughout the contest in a given year. This
way, the log checker can (theoretically) determine that if W1XXX copied your
check as 12, when everyone else copied it as 72 (and you say you sent 72),
W1XXX may not have actually copied the exchange correctly. Not that I've
ever heard of that actually being pulled on anyone, mind you.
Incidentally... this is the last year that all checks will be unique. The
first North American amateur licenses were issued by the government in 1912.
So a check of 12 means 1912, but 11 means 2011. Next year, a check of 12
could mean either 1912 or 2012. So certain checks will be very rare through
this year, but starting next year will suddenly become very common. Again,
not that it affects the scoring (it's not like the check is also a mult),
just mildly amusing trivia.
73, ron w3wn
-----Original Message-----
From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
[mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Joe
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2011 12:39 PM
To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Incomplete SS exchange
Well then should they not change the wording of the rules? Or why bother
having the rule at all?
Joe WB9SBD
The Original Rolling Ball Clock
Idle Tyme
Idle-Tyme.com
http://www.idle-tyme.com
On 11/9/2011 10:33 AM, W0MU Mike Fatchett wrote:
> Joe,
>
> The ARRL and the Contest Manager in WRITING has declared that they do
> not care what two numbers you use as long as you use that the entire
> contest. Sorry if this defeats someones database so they do not have to
> copy what was actually sent.
>
> Mike W0MU
>
> J6M CQ WW DX CW Contest 2011
> J6/W0MU November 21 - December 1 2011
> W0MU-1 CC Cluster w0mu.net
>
>
> On 11/9/2011 7:53 AM, Joe wrote:
>> On 11/9/2011 3:24 AM, Paul O'Kane wrote:
>>> In the ARRL Contest Update for November 9, Larry K5OT,
>>> the ARRL SS manager, is quoted as saying "according to
>>> Sweepstakes rule 4.3 you must include your full call
>>> sign in the exchange".
>> And as usual That rule is broken just like the CK is constantly being
>> broken. It is a NUMBER that is one of two possible numbers. NOT any
>> number you choose to use.
>>
>> Joe WB9SBD
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
|