[CQ-Contest] Follow the rules or affect change, but don't whine

[Paul O'Kane]

On 03/12/2011 18:35, Jim Reisert AD1C wrote:

> I'm tired of all this blabber about fictitious signals reports and CQ
> Zones.  It's pretty simple:

Jim has a point, but my point is pretty simple
too.  Any rule which requires contesters to
exchange meaningless or redundant information
is foolish - it is effectively a handicap on all
entrants.

If we had to send "abracadabra" as part of the
CQWW exchange, who would do it just because it's
in the rules?  Some might, but I'd lobby to get
the rule changed.

CQ has acknowledged that they discard RST while
checking logs, and yet they insist on it being
exchanged and logged.


> 1.  It's CQ's contest, they make the rules.
> 2.  The rules say:

>      IV. NUMBER EXCHANGE: Phone: RS report plus zone (i.e., 5905). CW:
> RST report plus zone (i.e., 59905).

No one sends an RS(T) report.  On CW, we all send
5NN - a meaningless constant.  Some send it so
fast that it's just a bit of noise, and some send
it as ENN, also very fast.  Some don't send it.


>      You have to send both, regardless of whether they have meaning to
> you or not.

Here we are, using all sorts of advanced
technology, and our many years of contesting
experience, to send a redundant exchange
element which has no meaning or significance
to anyone - and which is discarded during log
checking by CQ.


> 3.  CQ can check the logs any way they want, and can decide what to
> penalize, and how much to penalize.

Not so - CQ can only apply penalties in
accordance with their own rules.  The first
step might be to clearly define a "Bad QSO"
for the purpose of applying penalties.  When,
if ever, CQ starts to include 5NN in UBN
reports, we might all take a bit of notice.
In the meantime, associated penalties are
fiction.


> 4.  You disagree?  Refer to #1 above
> Simple, isn't it?

It's not simple - that's why we're discussing
the issues, and why some of us are trying to
get the rules changed.

73,
Paul EI5DI