[CQ-Contest] RULES ARE RULES

[Alan Braun]

It seems to me that any ambiguity in the way the rules themselves are worded
is taken care of by the example exchange that comes with them, and which is
included in them:

"Example: WA4QQN would respond to W1AW's call by sending: W1AW 123 B WA4QQN
71 NC which indicates QSO number 123, B for Single Op High Power, WA4QQN,
first licensed in 1971, and in the North Carolina section. "

I don't see how it could be any more clear than that. Plus the fact that
99.9% of the participants sent the exchange that way would seem to suggest
that people do indeed interpret the rules the way MAL suggests!

Alan NS0B



----- Original Message -----
From: "Leigh S. Jones" <kr6x at kr6x.com>
To: <CQ-Contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 9:13 PM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] RULES ARE RULES


>
> I remember having this exchange of ideas many years
> ago.  I took the position that Mark is taking, and
> another took the N7MAL position.  A year later, the
> SS announcement included some wording changes
> and it appeared that the new wording did not support
> my interpretation.  Subsequent announcements have
> occasionally regressed and made the rules less easy
> to interpret, and occasionally they have been more
> descriptive and more easily interpreted.
>
> Unfortunately, this ambivalence places a difficult
> burden on the contesting community.  I could suggest
> an interpretation of the rules that would provide
> clarification one way or the other, but unless the ARRL
> Contest Branch provides instrumentation of the rules,
> then my interpretation would have no meaning.
>
> I began operating the SS contest after doing CW
> traffic handling.  In those days, it was quite easy to
> see the intent of the rules -- the contest exchange
> was supposed to be an imitation of a message
> exchange in the style of the ARRL Radiogram form.
> This was, of course, in the days when the name
> American Radio Relay League had real meaning.
> It was easy to see, in those days, that the ARRL
> wanted to make the contest exchange follow the
> pattern of a radiogram in order to tie togther the
> ARRL and the contest in a thematic unity.
>
> In the early days of the SS, of course, a contest
> exchange included two complete messages (one
> each way), and the exchange was cut back in
> slow stages to 4 tiny bits of information plus the
> callsign.  Still, the exchange is supposed to be
> an abbreviated preamble to a radiogram.
>
> By the late 60's, it was quite common for the
> exchange to be sent with just the suffix from
> the callsign (i.e., 2 or 3 letters) in the callsign
> field -- the receiving station was supposed to be
> operated by a bright enough operator to fill in
> the blanks.  By the year 1980, many operators
> will do the entire contest without ever hearing
> the callsign skipped or abbreviated when sent
> by the operator on the far end.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mark Beckwith" <swca at swbell.net>
> To: <cq-contest at contesting.com>
> Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 8:41 AM
> Subject: RE: [CQ-Contest] RULES ARE RULES
>
>
> >
> > Mal, N7MAL wrote:
> >
> > >Below is an excerpt from the ARRL web site showing the exchange
> rule for
> > >Sweepstakes contests. Please notice the rule heading 4. Exchange:
> >
> > Mal, it would be helpful for your argument if you could quote the
> part of the
> > rules where it says the parts of the exchange must be all sent at
> the same time
> > and in the same order as you listed.
> >
> > I am fairly certain these things are not specified; hence one
> interpretation
> > could be that if the callsign got in the log it got exchanged.  That
> is
> > certainly the way I read it.
> >
> > Mark, N5OT
> >
> >
> > --
> > CQ-Contest on WWW: http://lists.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
> > Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST at contesting.com
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> CQ-Contest on WWW: http://lists.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
> Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST at contesting.com
>


--
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://lists.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST at contesting.com


>From Leigh S. Jones" <kr6x at kr6x.com  Tue Nov 20 05:47:51 2001
From: Leigh S. Jones" <kr6x at kr6x.com (Leigh S. Jones)
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 21:47:51 -0800
Subject: [CQ-Contest] RULES ARE RULES
References: <LNBBKELCOLFMLFBAHDNDKEBDCIAA.swca at swbell.net> <050601c1713f$1a81ff50$ede3c23f at kr6x.org> <00c201c1716c$4701ee00$8b48273f at alanbrau>
Message-ID: <009101c17186$e4f21030$ede3c23f at kr6x.org>


Alan,

You and I agree on:

1) The way 99.9% of the participants send the exchange
2) Probably the way we each sent the exchange this year
and for at least the past two decades

You and I probably disagree regarding:

1) The clarity of the rules (in my case, especially, the
clarity and consistency of the rules over a several decade
period
2) Whether or not your interpretation and the way 99.9%
of the participants send the exchange should be
considered "enforceable" rulemaking

Mark, on the otherhand, has now been taken to task by
one vocal individual on the reflector -- identified by call,
in fact.  The original post by N7MAL was somewhat
harsh, in my opinion, considering the nonsense and
obfuscation in the rules over the years.  It's one thing
to say that 99.9% of the participants send the exchange
one way, and another thing to say the rules prohibit any
disagreement with N7MAL's interpretation.

Of course, I have my own beliefs regarding rules.  I
strongly believe, for example, that webcams displaying
an operator in a contest are a clear violation of the
universal rules of contests as enunciated in both ARRL
rules and CQWW rules -- the equivalent of hotroom
telephone teams calling up hams from phonebooks to
encourage them to work a particular contest entrant.
In their defense, those who practice this particular
infraction can only say that the difference in their
scores resulting from the webcams probably isn't
very much.

Nonetheless, I haven't yet found it necessary to comb
the Internet looking for infractions and publish a list
on the reflector of those that I believe should be DQ'd.


--
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://lists.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST at contesting.com