Suggesting that a rule be changed is OK. Suggesting that a rule be
maintained as-is is OK too.
Supporting violation of the current rules because you think the current rule
should be changed is NOT OK.
Violation of the current rule is the issue that started this whole
discussion.
There were those who omitted their callsign from the exchange in violation
of the current rules - intentionally or not.
If and until the rules actually do change, the correct exchange for SS fone
or CW is comprised of 5 elements:
(1) Number (2) Precedence (3) Callsign (4) Check (5) Section
So, until the rule is changed from the above, please send the correct format
exchange in SS.
Oh - I'm in the camp to keep the SS exchange as-is.
73,
Bob W5OV
-----Original Message-----
From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
[mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Paul O'Kane
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 7:48 AM
To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Incomplete SS exchange
On 09/11/2011 16:24, Ward Silver wrote:
> No, the sensible response is, "OK" and then do it. That's what the
contest
> rules require and have required for nearly 80 years.
This is the perennial circular argument in support of
the "do nothing" option. The rules are what they are,
and you must do it because it's in the rules ....
> I am also forbidden to touch my golf club to the sand whilst getting out
of
> a trap (which if you ever saw me attempt a round of golf would be a
frequent
> occurrence) and that, too, is a bit of an oddity.
And no mention of the many golf rules that have changed
in the last 80 years? They change frequently - here are
some recent ones.
http://golf.about.com/od/rulesofgolf/a/golf-rules-changes-2012.htm
> Yes, things can change and it's OK to occasionally ask
> why rules are what they are.
Thanks, I'm asking :-) For what it's worth, there
were rule changes in SS as recently as 1999 and 2003.
Entrants no longer have to exchange 10-word messages
as they did in the 1930s. The exchange was again
shortened in 1971, to omit QSO time and birthday.
The SS exchange is not carved in tablets of stone.
http://www.qsl.net/nu0q/sshist.htm
> If there is a good reason for the rule (in
> this case, to emulate the format of a radiogram message - which are still
in
> use, by the way)
That is understood. The issue is why is it
necessary to emulate the radiogram format in SS,
when the callsign of the "Station of Origin" is
known in advance of hearing the exchange? Please
be specific - and without saying "because that's
the way it's been for 80 years" or "because it's
in the rules".
The Cabrillo authors knew exactly what they were
doing 12 years ago, when they scrapped provision
for the "Station of Origin" field in SS QSO records.
> Actually, changing a rule that has been in place since the 1930's would
> cause a whole lot more grief because that would be even more unexpected
than
> the call sign being present.
How could it possibly cause grief, apart from
the fact that some people would continue to
repeat their callsign? Most contesters can
deal with that. Best of all, there would be no
change to Cabrillo, no change to the SS robot,
and no change to software used to cross-check
SS logs.
> SS is not broken, let's not fix it - at least in this particular way.
No one, least of all me, has suggested it is
broken. Sometimes, in this forum, there
seems to be a tendency to exaggerate a little.
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
|