[CQ-Contest] CQWW - are signal reports optional?

[Paul O'Kane]

Mike N2MG said,

>My guess is they figured that 
>
>1) you screwed up on the exchange
>2) QRM obliterated it
>3) they, themselves missed it due to fatigue

Perhaps not, because I was running most of the time, so many of them
would have known I was not sending 5NN.

I think a few others would have asked for a report, except that they
didn't have anything convenient in their keyer memories.  I use an
external keyer and paddle all the time, so it's easier for me to react
when I hear something unusual.

>In any case, they adapted, logging the (almost as unimportant part)
>zone, and moved on.

Yes, that's probably what happened most of the time.

>CQWW is a rate contest so any "meaningful" exchange slows things down.  
>The "599" is a sort of synchronizing sound

Yes, but I believe that's only because we all expect it.  If you
don't expect it, you won't miss it.  When I'm running and you call
me, I send your callsign - you hear it and you know the important
bit comes next.

>The RST is required on DXCC QSL cards I believe - you want those folks to lie?

No need for anyone to lie.  I've had specific confirmation from ARRL
that no signal report of any kind whatsoever is required on QSL cards
for any ARRL award.

>Tradition plays a role as well - folks are used to it.  There's nothing 
>wrong with that...

That's right, and there's nothing wrong with paper logging either.
It's just that I don't do it any more.  All I've suggested is that,
in CQWW, RST should be recognised as an optional field.  I would
prefer not to send it, but I'll gladly give 59(9) to anyone who
feels they would prefer to hear it directly from me.

73,
Paul EI5DI