[CQ-Contest] SS Rules

[Kelly Taylor]

I was a guest at VE6JY this weekend, and he has resident in his TR directory
a database.

I noticed several times where the rx'd information differed from what was in
the database. No big deal, you just change it on the exchange line and move
on. Either the data used to create the database was faulty (possible,
considering it is generated from previous contests) or the fellow moved
(like NE0P -- at least he didn't move from a semi-rare section to, say, NTX)
or there was a different operator in the chair using a different check.

Another indication that you have to copy what was sent (possibly self-edit
so it makes sense) and log it, not what was in the database. If others lose
Qs because they were too dependent on the database, that's just another way
for good ops to win. Who can argue?

That some people are getting their 9913 in a knot over what people choose to
send as a check suggests a review of RF Exposure Guidelines might be in
order for some. It hardly seems important enough as long as the choice bears
some resemblance to the rules, which are open to interpretation.

When I've guest opped, I've used the host's check, but I also have no
quarrell with the viewpoint that it could also be the actual operator's
check that's sent (multiops are a different beast).

If we accept that part of this is a test of our ability to copy what was
sent, we should have no problem with checks that don't match what's in our
database, should we?

73, kelly
ve4xt



----- Original Message -----
From: "John Geiger" <johngeig at yahoo.com>
To: "Doug Smith W9WI" <w9wi at earthlink.net>; "cq-contest"
<cq-contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 12:09 AM
Subject: RE: [CQ-Contest] SS Rules


> In 2001 I moved from Iowa to Oklahoma and ran both the
> CW and SSB sweepstakes from here.  It was interesting
> to see in the ARRL log checking report that several
> stations lost a QSO with me because they put down IA
> as my section.  Seems people rely on the database a
> little too much.  Still don't use one here, but then
> don't know how to use one either.
>
> 73s John NE0P
>
> --- Doug Smith W9WI <w9wi at earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 2004-11-21 at 16:44, K0HB wrote:
> > > the same with them.  I guess that confounds those
> > who depend on a database
> > > for the information rather than actually copying
> > what is sent.
> >
> > Man, one really did have to listen this year, a
> > *lot* of the checks in
> > my database were different from what the guys were
> > sending.  (and my
> > database is made entirely from my own logs - so I
> > can't blame it on
> > someone else's poor copying skills<grin>)
> >
> > But yes, it's always seemed ambigious whether they
> > mean the operator's
> > first license or the station's first license.  In a
> > multiop situation
> > using the operator's first license could make the
> > logs rather difficult
> > to check...
> > --
> > Doug Smith W9WI
> > Pleasant View (Nashville), TN  EM66
> > http://www.w9wi.com
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > CQ-Contest mailing list
> > CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> >
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest