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

[David Levine]

Ron, W3WN said:
You're saying that because the Cabrillo file format for SS doesn't sequence
the log information in the same exact order it's sent, we can therefore
ignore SS rules (or at least suggestions from the contest head) regarding
what order to send it in... and omit the call sign that is a required part
of the exchange?

-----

No Ron, I didn't say that at all.

First I said no one is disputing the rules are the rules. Where you and some
others made the leap from a discussion on the topic to assuming we feel
empowered we can ignore the rules is a wrong statement. We were discussing
the usefulness of repeating your call sign, officially, as part of the
contest exchange.

And if you read the post you replied to and previous posts, the question has
nothing to do with the sequence of the items in the exchange. In fact, I
explicitly stated the sequence is irrelevant. I'll again repeat the item
about the log file. Compare the log records from the SS file and from a VHF
file. In the VHF contest, there's no need to officially exchange your call
sign as part of the exchange. In the VHF Cabrillo file, you'll see the call
sign of both stations listed on the QSO record. Now review the QSO record in
the Cabrillo file for the SS contest and you'll see the "redundant" call
sign that needs to, as part of the rules, included in the exchange does not
appear in the Cabrillo file. So the exchange in the Cabrillo file (mine was
generated from N1MM) for the SS contest does not contain the call sign in
any redundant manner as we are required to communicate during the contest
contact.

Ron, though you seem to indicate that folks are just arguing to hear
themselves type, I'd really question some of the responses I've seen as
there seems to be a need for folks to read and comprehend the entire post
they are replying to and not try to pull things out of context. But that's
just my perception as a new contester and a very recent member of joining
this mailing list.

And for Mike, N3LI, thanks for replying with a very rational and on-target
response to the discussion. You obviously don't fall into the "don't read
and don't comprehend" side of the room.

I'm done with this discussion unless someone replies directly to me. I think
it was interesting to see how folks responded and what they feel passionate
about. For me, it's just a hobby I have fun at and jumped into this
discussion because it seems out of place to send the call sign in the matter
the rules require.

73
David - K2DSL  

-----Original Message-----
From: cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com
[mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Ron Notarius W3WN
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 5:45 PM
To: cq-contest at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] SS SSB And Your Callsign In The Exchange

So, let me get this straight, David.

You're saying that because the Cabrillo file format for SS doesn't sequence
the log information in the same exact order it's sent, we can therefore
ignore SS rules (or at least suggestions from the contest head) regarding
what order to send it in... and omit the call sign that is a required part
of the exchange?

I don't see where one has anything to do with another.

How the data is input and transmitted in electronic form is, IMHO,
irrelevant to how two contestants exchange the information on the air.

And if you disagree, then there's a simple solution:  Revised the Cabrillo
template for SS for future contests to store the data in the same order it's
sent.  Silly?  Yup, but no sillier than this same, tired argument.

The rules say, send it this way.  The tradition and common practice is, send
it this way.  What's so hard about that?

Must we break every tradition, just because we can?

I swear, there are people on this reflector who would not only argue about
how many angels could dance on the head of a pin, but dissect how big the
pin head is, and how you could convince members of the Los Angeles Angels of
Anaheim to start dancing on it in the first place.

-----Original Message-----
From: cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com
[mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com]On Behalf Of David Levine
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 7:01 AM
To: 'Paul O'Kane'
Cc: cq-contest at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] SS SSB And Your Callsign In The Exchange


Paul,

I and others here seem to agree with you. Yes it's the rule and we all need
to comply with the rules at the time. As you noted, no one seems to be
disputing that. Folks that think it is redundant and not necessary are
questioning the value of the requirement. I don't think some folks here can
separate the two.

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!

David - K2DSL