I think that you should comply with the existing rules and seek their
change only via the appropiate channels (lobbying, petitions, etc)
If you dont follow the rules in order to make a statement and thus
achieve a change (replacing RS(T) with a more meaningful exchange), to
be DQ would be a good thing for you cause! It´s like civil
disobedience...
If you didn´t send a report, only to win a few secs... then you are
just not playing by the rules and the contest manager should do
something about it (warning, DQ).
My opinion.
73
Ernesto
LU5CW
2008/3/31, 4O3A <yt6a@cg.yu>:
> Steve,
>
> It does not have any sense at all. 2547 seconds in favor?? Should I blame
> M6T that he did better because his callsign is shorter?
>
>
> If this subject is your biggest problem, will do something on it. Next time
> will repeat RST at least twice. It can help either, because I will not have
> dupes. All will recognise my 59..59..xxxx and will not call me again.Hi.
>
> 73
> Ranko
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Steve London" <n2icarrl@gmail.com>
> To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
> Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 3:42 PM
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Improper WPX Exchanges
>
>
> > Ranko,
> >
> > Broadcasting the contest on the internet was a great service ! I know of
> > many
> > contesters who listened to your audio for part of the contest and were
> > impressed.
> >
> > However, many of those same listeners noted that you were often leaving
> > out the
> > signal report. In fact, here are some statistics from a few listeners.
> >
> > Listener % of QSO's with signal report
> >
> > N6** 30
> > K5** 27
> > K5## 21
> > K3** 25
> >
> > So, let's play with those numbers. You made 3543 QSO's. Without making
> > accusations, let's assume that you gave a signal report for 25% of the
> > QSO's,
> > and let's say that speaking "five-nine" adds 1 second to each QSO. That
> > gave you
> > an extra 2547 seconds of operating time, compared to an equivalent
> > station/operator who sent the signal report with every QSO. Using your
> > average
> > rate of 98 QSOs/hour, that gave you 70 extra QSO's.
> >
> > A few contesters on this list will applaud your ingenuity. I, and the vast
> > majority of contesters, feel that you broke the rules, and, as a result,
> > gained
> > a competitive advantage.
> >
> > 73,
> > Steve, N2IC
> >
> >
> > 4O3A wrote:
> >> My friends,
> >>
> >> I broadcasted all contest and all was very open. Tried to encourage local
> >> contesters to do the same and to make contesting more open here. I do not
> >> think that I have to make any longer comment on that subject? I Of course
> >> I
> >> gave RST and probably sometimes in huge pileup's gave only number, as 59
> >> is
> >> default. I really push many of you back to repeat exchange number to be
> >> sure
> >> its correct. After many hours I did some mistakes, either, and for some
> >> you
> >> have to shot me, at least??
> >>
> >> Two questions? How many times in contest you gave 59, but asked guy to
> >> repeat
> >> report many times. Was it 59? Why you did not gave 33 as it really was?
> >> Is it
> >> OK to have some exchanges, as zones already implemented in logging
> >> program
> >> and you just put enter, even if you did not hear report?
> >>
> >> Now someone's have good subject and can discuss that matter next few
> >> months?
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks to all who called me in WPX and lets enjoy.
> >>
> >> Ranko
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________ 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
|