[CQ-Contest] Improper WPX Exchanges

[N7mal]

Paul let's take it step further. What purpose does sending a serial number 
serve.?. I don't care how many stations you, or anybody else, has worked. 
All I care about is I work you and you work me. I don't care what country or 
state you're in or what zone.
I am one of those 'clamorer's you referred to. All of society, even 
ham-radio contesters, are bound by rules. Rules are what define order. If 
you, or anyone else, doesn't like a rule then lobby to get it changed. If 
you get enough signatures on a petition then the contest committee will have 
to take a look at it. I seriously doubt you would get enough signatures. I 
really don't think you would even get 10% of the contesting community.
So back to clamoring: When you deliberately and willfully break the rules 
then there needs to be a penalty. With reference to this past  WPXSSB the 
only reasonable penalty is DQ since it appears the rule breaking involved 
more than 50% of those stations that were worked by the offending 
stations....
73

 MAL
N7MAL
BULLHEAD CITY, AZ
http://www.n7mal.com
Everyone in the world is
entitled to be burdened
by my opinion


----- Original Message ----- 

----- 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  with out-of-date information wastes every­body's time.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out-of-date rule that wastes everybody's time.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