Actually, the ARRL has said the intent of the rule was to provide a means for
including a two-digit element in the exchange similar to the header on a
message, not necessarily to get people to send the year they were licensed.
Year of license was a convenient, easily understood meme.
If the point is to test your ability to copy what’s sent rather than accepting
what’s in your SCP file, wouldn’t you welcome a station changing his check?
73, kelly, ve4xt
> On Oct 20, 2017, at 12:14 PM, Ron Notarius W3WN <wn3vaw@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> I'm right? Really?
>
> Please, I need that in writing, properly notarized. Two copies -- one for my
> wife, one for my ex-wife. (No point in giving one to my mother-in-law, she
> wouldn't believe it anyway!)
>
> Seriously, though...
>
> Iff the rules are clear, why does this argument, er, discussion seem to come
> up almost every year? What's next, the argument, er, discussion over
> "assisted" operating?
>
> And the real point is, yes, the ARRL has said it doesn't matter, as long as
> you are consistent. In other words, if you make an honest error, or pick a
> check for any other reason, they won't penalize you. Even so, the intent of
> the rules is clear.
>
> I understand why some are trying to "defeat" those who are copying from a
> database of past endeavors, Which also means that they are, technically,
> breaking the rules. Isn't that just as bad? Where does it end?
>
> 73, ron W3WN
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kelly Taylor <ve4xt@mymts.net>
> To: Ron Notarius W3WN <wn3vaw@verizon.net>
> Cc: cq-contest <cq-contest@contesting.com>
> Sent: Fri, Oct 20, 2017 12:49 pm
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] "It's just to save on typing"
>
> You’re right, Ron, the rules are clear: ARRL has final say. ARRL has said it
> really doesn’t matter. We can officially stop the hand-wringing!
>
> 73, kelly, ve4xt
>
> > On Oct 20, 2017, at 11:05 AM, Ron Notarius W3WN <wn3vaw@verizon.net
> > <mailto:wn3vaw@verizon.net>> wrote:
> >
> > The rules are vague on the SS check? Really?
> >
> >
> > When operating as an individual, it should be the year YOU were first
> > licensed. Even if you are "borrowing" someone's shack.
> >
> >
> > If it is a multi-single effort, it should be the year that the HOST was
> > first licensed. In the case of a club station, that would be the year that
> > the CLUB was first licensed.
> >
> >
> > Nothing vague about that.
> >
> >
> > OK, so the rules may not have been written with iron-clad legal-type
> > precision years ago. We could always hire attorneys to scrutinize the rules
> > to make them so precise that their ought to be no ambiguity... of course
> > there always will be, in the minds of some, but that's beside the point...
> > but then, who would read 150 pages of rules in legalese? Plain English
> > ought to be more than adequate.
> >
> >
> > IMHO there is no ambiguity. The intent of the rules is clear.
> >
> >
> > 73, ron W3WN
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Kelly Taylor <ve4xt@mymts.net <mailto:ve4xt@mymts.net>>
> > To: Michael Clarson <wv2zow@gmail.com <mailto:wv2zow@gmail.com>>
> > Cc: James Cain <jamesdavidcain@gmail.com
> > <mailto:jamesdavidcain@gmail.com>>; CQ contest reflector
> > <cq-contest@contesting.com <mailto:contest@contesting.com>>
> > Sent: Fri, Oct 20, 2017 11:58 am
> > Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] "It's just to save on typing"
> >
> > The difficulty with being obstinate about following rules to the letter is
> > situations vary and rules are often vague. The check is certainly in that
> > category.If you are a guest op, is it YOUR year of first licence or your
> > host’s? If you’re using his callsign, using your check muddles matters. If
> > it’s a multiop, whose check? If you were to follow the rules to the letter,
> > you might have each op giving out his own check (it’s not exactly clear
> > when all it says is “the year you were first licensed.”)Further: the rules
> > also state quite clearly “the decisions of the ARRL are final.” The ARRL
> > has decided it will not enforce checks (pretty hard to do, anyway). (Which
> > is not the same as saying you get away with miscopying a check, merely the
> > League will take no steps to determine if VE4XT really was first licensed
> > in 1982. (I was.))So, if you’re obstinate about following rules and the
> > rules say the ARRL decisions are final, then you must accept there is some
> > deliberate vagueness to the rule and stop worrying about it.73, kelly,
> > ve4xt > On Oct 20, 2017, at 9:05 AM, Michael Clarson <wv2zow@gmail.com
> > <mailto:wv2zow@gmail.com>> wrote:> > Have to agree with James. Rules pretty
> > clear on what the exchange is.> Check is"year first licensed", not some two
> > digit number I made up to> change things up. --Mike, WV2ZOW> > On Fri, Oct
> > 20, 2017 at 8:23 AM, <jamesdavidcain@gmail.com
> > <mailto:jamesdavidcain@gmail.com>> wrote:>> Lessee, now. This discussion
> > began concerning the ARRL Sweepstakes>> contest(s).>> >> Seems to me that a
> > legitimate entry must follow the rules for the exchange,>> and those rules
> > are specific. I don't see where any of the exchange elements>> can be
> > fudged, or "negotiated.">> >> If you don't plan to submit your SS log you
> > can fudge anything you want -->> except your call sign. But that's not
> > playing fair.>> >> K1TN>> >> >> 4.1. A consecutive serial number;>> >> 4.2.
> > Precedence;>> >> 4.2.1. "Q" for Single Op QRP (5 Watts output or less);>>
> > >> 4.2.2. "A" for Single Op Low Power (up to 150 W output);>> >> 4.2.3. "B"
> > for Single Op High Power (greater than 150 W output);>> >> 4.2.4. "U" for
> > Single Op Unlimited Single-Op Unlimited High Power and>> Single-Op
> > Unlimited Low Power both send "U")>> >> 4.2.5. "M" for Multi-Op (Multiop
> > High Power and Multiop Low Power both send>> "M")>> >> 4.2.6. "S" for
> > School Club;>> >> 4.3. Your Callsign (remember that you must include your
> > call sign during the>> exchange)>> >> 4.4. Check>> >> 4.4.1. The last 2
> > digits of the year of first license for either the>> operator or the
> > station.>> >> 4.4.2. An entry must send the same Check throughout the
> > entire contest.>> >> 4.5. ARRL/RAC Section (click here for the official
> > list>> <http://www.arrl.org/contest-sections-list
> > <http://www.arrl.org/contest-sections-list>> )>> >> >> >> ----------->> >>
> > I've been meaning to change things up anyway, just to keep them on their>>
> > toes.>> >> 73>> Ria, N2RJ>> On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 4:31 PM Art Boyars
> > <artboyars@gmail.com <mailto:artboyars@gmail.com>> wrote:>> >>> When I saw
> > the post about Call History Files for SS, and then saw the post>>> for the
> > site where you can get them, I was tempted to put in some bogus>>> data --
> > change CK 60 to CK 69; change name Art to name Ari. But I'm not>>> quite
> > that cranky. Yet.>>> >>> 73, Art K3KU>>> >>> On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 12:48
> > AM, Radio K0HB <kzerohb@gmail.com <mailto:kzerohb@gmail.com>> wrote:>>>
> > >>>> Where possible, I routinely "update" my exchange from the last
> > contest,>>>> just to confound those who use "pre-loaded" data file
> > crutches.>>>> >>>> 73, de Hans, K0HB>>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original
> > Message----- From: Art Boyars>>>> Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2017 9:01
> > PM>>>> To: CQ-Contest Reflector>>>> Subject: [CQ-Contest] "It's just to
> > save on typing">>>> >>>> E-mail chatting with N4ZR, who has relocated from
> > WV to MD. Pete muses>>>> that a lot of people who rely on SCP or Call
> > History (or whatever it is)>>>> "to save on typing" will bust the QSO by
> > logging him as WV.>>>> >>>> I can see it now -- a cry for making the data
> > files official; perhaps>>>> prohibiting people from relocating or using a
> > different name.>>>> >>>> "All participants must register in the official
> > Call History File. Your>>>> log must contain the data as reported in that
> > File. Scoring will be in>>>> accordance with that File.">>>> >>>> Just
> > think of all the typing we'll save!>>>> >>>> 73, Art K3KU>>>> who hopes you
> > took this in fun (sort of)>>>>
> > _______________________________________________>>>> CQ-Contest mailing
> > list>>>> CQ-Contest@contesting.com <mailto:Contest@contesting.com>>>>>
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> > <http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest>>>>> >>>
> > _______________________________________________>>> CQ-Contest mailing
> > list>>> CQ-Contest@contesting.com <mailto:Contest@contesting.com>>>>
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> > <http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest>>>> >>
> > _______________________________________________>> CQ-Contest mailing list>>
> > CQ-Contest@contesting.com <mailto:Contest@contesting.com>>>
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> > <http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest>>> >> >> >>
> > _______________________________________________>> CQ-Contest mailing list>>
> > CQ-Contest@contesting.com <mailto:Contest@contesting.com>>>
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> > <http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest>>
> > _______________________________________________> CQ-Contest mailing list>
> > CQ-Contest@contesting.com <mailto:Contest@contesting.com>>
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest_______________________________________________CQ-Contest
> >
> > <http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest_______________________________________________CQ-Contest>
> > mailing listCQ-Contest@contesting.comhttp
> > <mailto:Contest@contesting.comhttp>://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> > _______________________________________________
> > CQ-Contest mailing list
> > CQ-Contest@contesting.com <mailto:Contest@contesting.com>
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> > <http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest>
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|