[CQ-Contest] no no no...it MUST be 579 (was 599)

Jimk8mr at aol.com Jimk8mr at aol.com
Thu Jul 22 20:02:13 PDT 2010

In a perfect world, penalties for busted qsos would be related to the  
reported signal report.
If you give the guy a 59(9) and bust his info, you must be pretty bad at  
copying signals that are, by your own admission, perfectly readable  signals.
If you give him a 33(9) and bust his info, it may be partly the other guy's 
 fault for being so weak, or the fault of neither of you that there was  so 
much QRM and QRN,  so therefore not so much of a reflection on your  
73  -  Jim   K8MR
In a message dated 7/22/2010 7:06:36 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
kr2q at optimum.net writes:

Sorry  folks...but ever try reading the RULES?

>From CQWW

report plus zone (i.e., 5705). CW: RST
report plus  zone (i.e., 57905).

So we are all REQUIRED to send 5705 or 57905,  irrespective of S strength, 
readability, or
actual zone.

We all know  that "IE" translates into "that is," right?  So CQ specifies 
exactly what  we
are supposed to send and it is NOT 599.

NOTE:  Clearly, the  rule should read: (EG 5705) since EG = "for example."

Additionally,  nowhere in the CQWW Rules does it state that you have record 
the  exchange,
only to make an exchange.

As far as I know (afaik for you  net guys), cabrillo is what "requires" 
that the exchange field
be  populated.

April in July!!

de Doug  KR2Q
CQ-Contest mailing  list
CQ-Contest at contesting.com

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list