[CQ-Contest] Sweepstakes -Automatic Fill - 93 or 67

[w5ov at w5ov.com]

Stan,

No, it's not my opinion. The league has made the statement in the past
that the ck number can be any number you choose to use as long as you
don't change it during the contest.

Given that the number is intended to represent the radiogram "check" (word
count) in the message preamble and it is not intended to convey or certify
what year someone was licensed, the actual number sent simply does not
matter as long as it remains constant throughout the contest.

I suspect that someone decided that they needed a convenient way to come
up with a 2 digit number to use for the check, so the convention of using
the last 2 of your first year licensed was established. My opinion has
always been that I liked seeing when people were first licensed.

If someone thinks that using 55 is better than 79 or 67, then who cares if
they send 55? In my opinion, they are wrong in their thinking, but that
doesn't matter either.

I was first licensed in 1973, and I will send 73 as my check until I can't
operate any more.

73,

Bob W5OV

> W5OV wrote:
>
>>Just pick two numbers and send them for the entire >contest. Before you
>>send any replies re-stating >something like "but the rule says"...
>>please refer to my >statement that the actual number does not matter to
>> >anyone so don't bother replying. But, then why does >the rule say
>>that? Again, it does not matter so drop it, >please! The check is
>>simply a number that represents >what used to be the word count in a
>>"radiogram"
>>which is what SS is emulating. Again, the actual >number does not
>>matter and no one verifies that what >you send is actually anyone's
>>first year of anything - >guess why? Because *it does not matter*!
>
> Bob,
>
> Disregard the stated rule, drop the subject, don't reply, case closed
> because you say to refer to your stated opinion, which basically says
> the stated rule does not mean anything?
>
> I'm pretty sure if it did not matter to the ARRL that many might start
> sending 55, 88, 73 or some other easier to copy number instead of 67 or
> some other number which has to be repeated more often.
>
> Comparing my log checking reports from 2008 and 2007 the 2008 LCR shows
> 64% more stations (74 as compared to 45) who miscopied CK 67 and sent in
> the log with the incorrect check in 2008 as compared to CK 93 in 2007.
> The QSO numbers were close from year to year - 1448 in 2008 and 1426 in
> 2007.
>
> I have no idea of the number of requests for repeats  were but would
> guess for everyone who logged it incorrectly there were at least as many
> and perhaps twice as many instances of having to repeat the check.  25
> or 50 extra instances of a repeat over that of a competitor can equate
> to a big difference in the final ranking.
>
> Everyone should understand the rules and play by the same set of rules
> as opposed to having individual interpretations.  Until the rules
> change, I will send 67 unless someone else operates and uses my
> callsign.  Then, most likely, there will be two options based on the
> 2008 rule which specifically changed from 2007 to allow either the
> station or operator check to be used.
>
> 73...Stan,  K5GO
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>