If that is the point, then that should be the rule. Why have a rule
that is contrary to the intent of the rule? If there was contention
for the #1 spot, and #1 made up a number and #2 did not, shouldn't #2
petition the judges to DQ #1 for not following the rules, on the basis
that it takes less time for #1 to send 55 instead of the year he was
first licensed, which might be 00? And, if 55 gives one a small
advantage, then perhaps everyone can send 55! The fact that ARRL
doesn't check certain things is policy, not a rule, and can change at
any time.
On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 1:20 PM, Kelly Taylor <ve4xt@mymts.net> wrote:
> 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
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|