[CQ-Contest] 'bogus' check

[Richard Ferch]

On Sat, 27 Apr 2002 10:07:10 -0400, Jeff Maass jmaass at columbus.rr.com sent:

> If you can justify changing the *check* in your exchange, I can
> justify changing the **Section** in my exchange (so long as I'm
> consistent)! In fact, as it doesn't say "*Your* ARRL/RAC Section"
> it is **less** explicit than the specification for Check, which it
> says must be "...year *you* were first licensed"!
>
> Perhaps I'll send "WY' or "ND" as my *section* this year, as they
> *are* ARRL Sections. From Ohio, that should provide an advantage
> for me!
>

Surely you jest, Jeff!

Using a faked check is a lot like fibbing about your age in the All Asian
contest, or the commonplace practice of using a nickname in the NAQP.
Remember all the "Chad"s in January 2001? Did anyone seriously suggest that
this was a violation of the rules? Heck, there's even an award for "best
name" in the RTTY NAQP! I think the majority view you referred to is that
the check in SS is similar to these.

Using a faked section would be completely different. In SS, the section is a
critical element of contest scoring, both for multipliers and for the Clean
Sweep award, as well as for your competitive position vs. the rest of the
section. Lying about your section would attack the integrity of the contest
results and awards. I'm proud of my Clean Sweep mug, but if I seriously
thought there was a chance that some of the QSOs were with falsified
sections, I would throw it out - it would have no value to me. Not that it
is any of my business (I'm not an ARRL member), but my personal opinion is
that if a station located in Ohio were to deliberately send "WY" or "ND" as
his section, that should be grounds for disqualification. And no, I don't
think for a second that you or anyone else on this reflector would actually
do that - it was obviously a "straw man" argument!

The callsign in the exchange is another such critical element; it must be
consistent and unchanged during the contest, any particular call sign must
only be used by one station during the contest, and of course it must be a
callsign the operator is legally entitled to use.

The precedence is different. I don't care during the contest what the other
station's precedence is, as long as they record it correctly in their log
(for log checking - obviously, to deliberately record something different in
the log than what was sent over the air would be highly unethical, but I
hope we are not talking about that kind of tactic!). However, the log
checkers may wish to insist that it be consistent with the entry
classification, and that is their prerogative. Nevertheless, let's suppose
someone, perhaps for childish one-upmanship reasons, sends "Q" during the
contest, logs the exchange as such, but uses high power and enters their log
in the high power category (again, I am not talking about lying about the
power, only about using an incorrect precedence in the exchange). If
everyone could somehow be completely sure that this would not result in
errors during the log checking process or a misclassification of the entry,
would it really matter?

The serial number is similar. It doesn't matter to me if someone increases
their serial number by ten instead of by one after every QSO, as long as
what they put in their log agrees with what they sent me. Indeed, the longer
serial numbers they will have to send will probably increase the number of
fills they are asked for, so it's actually in my competitive interest if
someone else inflates their serial numbers. The log checkers may choose to
insist otherwise, of course, and have their own valid reasons for doing so.
Furthermore, they can easily enforce the rule about consecutive serial
numbers by checking the logs, just as they can enforce the precedence rule
by cross-checking the precedence with the entry class.

However, using a bogus check affects no-one at all. As long as I copy
correctly what the other guy sends, and as long as he records it correctly
in his log, who cares? Again, the log checkers may insist that it not change
during the contest for log-checking reasons. I suppose that, according to a
literal-minded reading of the rules, they could even insist that it be
correct, but why would they? Unlike insisting that the check be consistent,
which is verifiable, insisting on correctness would be unenforceable and,
more importantly, immaterial, and therefore a waste of time. Logically, a
rule which is unenforceable and immaterial may not be a very good one, but
there would be no real point to changing this particular rule even if
everyone agreed that it needn't be taken literally.

Despite the above argument, I think that Al's idea of changing his check is
not a particularly good one as far as improving his score is concerned. I
believe the net effect on his score could even be negative, as follows:
Given the widespread use of master callsign databases, there is an advantage
to using a consistent check every year, or a consistent name in every NAQP.
It's similar to the advantage everyone gets by sending 599 instead of a true
signal report in CQ WW. Namely, it may slightly reduce the number of fills,
which may in turn have a positive effect on the score. On the other hand, I
suppose using a different name or check every year or a different signal
report every QSO might improve your competitive situation ever so slightly
by increasing the likelihood of busted QSOs in your competitors' logs.
Speaking for myself, I would judge the former effect to be of more actual
benefit than the latter.

Now on the other hand, if Al wanted to shorten his Sweepstakes exchange by
moving from LAX to NE, I'm sure he would get lots of encouragement from the
rest of us! ;)

73,
Rich VE3IAY