[CQ-Contest] Incomplete SS exchange

[Nate Bargmann]

* On 2011 07 Nov 12:41 -0600, Georgek5kg at aol.com wrote:
> I am throwing this out there for comment.
>  
> In SS, I worked a number of ops who did not send their callsign  as part of 
> the exchange.  I found this to be very frustrating  for several reasons, 
> namely (1) sending the callsign as part of the  "required exchange" is 
> specified in the SS rules, (2) it breaks  the rhythm when copying the exchange, and 
> finally (3) it gives the op an  advantage by not taking time to send his 
> callsign.

Agreed!  I put this up on eHam yesterday and hadn't gotten around to
starting a thread here.  They didn't get an advantage from me as the
lack of the call often required a repeat for me to get the Check and
Section copied.

> Question: Should there be a penalty for not sending the callsign as part of 
>  the required exchange?  

Perhaps not this year yet.  I may go ahead and note the calls of those
shortcutting the exchange and if we agree that we will post them, then
that is what I'll do.

As I see it, dropping the callsign--a required part of the
exchange--would be no different than dropping the signal report when it
is required.  After all "everyone is 59(9)".

73, de Nate >>

-- 

"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all
possible worlds.  The pessimist fears this is true."

Ham radio, Linux, bikes, and more: http://www.n0nb.us