[CQ-Contest] SS SSB And Your Callsign In The Exchange

[Michael Coslo]

On Nov 18, 2008, at 7:01 AM, David Levine wrote:
>
>
> I also haven't seen anyone respond to my question regarding the  
> Cabrillo
> file which needs to be submitted. It doesn't include the redundant  
> call sign
> "rule" in it. It only includes the same call sign that exists in any
> Cabrillo file which needs to be submitted. So it seems that at least  
> in what
> we need to provide to the ARRL as our official submission, they  
> don't want
> the redundant call sign either!

I did, but I'll respond direct too.

To not have the Cabrillo file include the double exchange is probably  
giving some people heartburn, since now we'll probably discuss how  
only hand written paper logs will be acceptable. (that's a joke)

One of the issues that I see crop up from time to time is that there  
is a segment of contesters who believe that the rules are to be  
wielded as some sort of weapon, to bludgeon the transgressors into  
submission or extinction.

The rules are there to show the Operators what they have to do, not to  
punish them. There is a difference. It's why we will accept a log the  
day after the final submission date, or I'll even do it later than  
that if the Op gets hold of me and grovels properly - just kidding,  
all I need is notification that they are running a little late and  
some good idea when they will have it ready.

But the point is, There are rules that I'm going to give no quarter  
on, and ones that have a little leeway with. Look at the PAQSO rules  
on the mobile window. I changed that to part of "suggested  
frequencies", as in how are we going to enforce it?

This doubled callsign is just one of those rules that needs changed.  
ARRL knows it, and if there is enough interest expressed, they  
probably will change it. They are already not DQ'ing people for not  
doing it - and of course given the non-inclusion in the Cabrillo  
files, they simply don't know who is and who isn't "doing it  
correctly". They >suggest< doing it twice, and there ya go! Any  
NIL'ing is an Operator's prerogative, not ARRL's.


-73 de Mike N3LI -