CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] Check In SS

To: Keith Dutson <kdutson@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Check In SS
From: Michael Clarson <wv2zow@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2017 11:00:01 -0500
List-post: <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
Keith: So the rules are more like the Pirate's Code: "And thirdly, the
code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules."
--Barbossa from Pirates of the Caribbean --73, Mike, WV2ZOW

On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 8:59 AM, Keith Dutson <kdutson@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> As the coordinator of a contest, I take exception to your negative comments
> on rules.  To me, rules are written as guidelines to contesters.  It is a
> rare occurrence when contesters protest rules, and/or contest results.  The
> ruling authority then gets blamed for these complaints.  There is never a
> winner in these cases.
>
> 73, Keith NM5G
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of
> W0MU Mike Fatchett
> Sent: Wednesday, November 8, 2017 3:32 PM
> To: cq-contest@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Check In SS
>
> Because the ARRL can interpret their rules they way they want to and they
> have numerous statements that is doesn't really matter.
>
> They could change the rules but why when they can ignore them if they want.
>
> W0MU
>
>
> On 11/8/2017 12:37 PM, John Geiger wrote:
>> What is the point of the ARRL stating in the rules that the check is
>> the year first licensed, if they really don't care what you send?
>>
>> 73 John AF5CC
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 9:51 AM, W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu@w0mu.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I think most people try to use their actual year licensed.
>>>
>>> That would be a good question to ask on the entry form.   What year were
>>> you licensed.  It think we all know that new hams are hard to come by
>>> and many are not interested in contesting.
>>>
>>> W0MU
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/7/2017 1:54 PM, ShelbyK4WW wrote:
>>>
>>>> Why are so many putting so much emphasis on the CK, as anything more
>>>> than a "randomly chosen two digit number that is consistently used
>>>> throughout the contest", having absolutely no relation to anything?
>>>> ARRL has indicated it will not enforce the CK as being "The last 2
>>>> digits of the year of first license for either the operator or the
>>>> station", and many have indicated that they change their CK, from
>>>> year to year? It certainly has little, if any, bearing on when they
>>>> were licensed?
>>>> As far as CW speed is concerned, when I call another station, I feel
>>>> obligated to try and match their speed. Sometimes this requires me
>>>> to listen to several contacts, before calling. I expect, and usually
>>>> receive, the same consideration, when I'm called? I fail to see any
>>>> logic to calling at a much higher speed, then having to endure
>>>> several repeats?
>>>>
>>>> In it to win it? Not a chance
>>>> In it to have fun? Most definitely
>>>>
>>>> 73, Shelby - K4WW
>>>> As I don't have an iPad nor iPhone, sent from my PC
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>