[CQ-Contest] Dumbing-Down Contests?

[Paul J. Piercey]

Just a quick question... with follow-ups.

At any time in contesting was the signal report considered important enough
to be a true RST rather than the standard 599?

If so, why did that change?

If not, why is it being used at all?


73 -- Paul VO1HE  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com 
> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of w5ov at w5ov.com
> Sent: February 21, 2008 23:32
> To: Paul O'Kane
> Cc: cq-contest at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Dumbing-Down Contests?
> 
> EI5DI said:
> > It is broke!  It has been broken for over 20 years - since computer 
> > logging became the norm.
> >
> > CT, the first major contest logger, had no provision for 
> logging RST 
> > Sent as anything other than 59(9).  Since then, the 
> mindless exchange 
> > of 59(9) has become redundant.
> >
> 
> Paul,
> 
> 599, or more accurately 5NN has been the default signal 
> report for at least the 35 years that I have been contesting 
> / DXing and probably goes back even longer than that.
> 
> I think it might be more accurate to say that CT followed the 
> de facto standard of logging 599 as the sent RST instead of 
> causing it.
> 
> 73,
> 
> Bob W5OV
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>