[CQ-Contest] Improper WPX Exchanges

[Ron Notarius W3WN]

Paul,

While the rule may be obsolete, which is a different argument altogether...
it is the rule.  That IS the point, pure and simple.

It is ultimately up to the CQ WPX Contest Committee to decide what sanctions
(if any) are appropriate, and how they should be applied.  And I don't
recall any members of that committee publicly asking for comments.

We can debate amongst ourselves 'till the cows come home how serious the
violations are, or what penalities (if any) are appropriate, from a minor
wrist-slap (such as a "don't do it again" warning) to the most draconian
available (DQ).  And get everyone's dander up and create hard feelings.
Whether or not any of this will influence the committee in any way, shape,
or form remains to be seen.

73

-----Original Message-----
From: cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com
[mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com]On Behalf Of Paul O'Kane
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 1:14 PM
To: cq-contest at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Improper WPX Exchanges


----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Tessmer" <mtessmer at mindspring.com>

<snip>

> That's not the point.  The point is that the contest
> exchange, as currently written in the contest rules,
> is RS(T) report and serial number.

The actual point is that many members of this mailing
list are clamouring for a penalty to be applied to
those individuals who disregarded an obsolete rule
in WPX.

They might do better to direct their indignation at
the contest sponsors who have neglected to update
their rules in the light of changes in operating
practices, in particular the mindless repetition of
59(9), over the last 30 years or so.

According to a report in The Telegraph (London), for
31st January 2008,

  People need to be clear about what is in force and
  what is not, and an oversized statute book filled
  with out-of-date information wastes every­body's time.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/01/30/nband130.xml

The mindless repetition of 59(9) is the result of an
out-of-date rule that wastes everybody's time.  It
is quite clear that the rule is not in force because
no one is penalised for ignoring it.

It's time to put up or shut up.  Change the rules
or penalise those who break them.

73,
Paul EI5DI


_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest