[CQ-Contest] Automation = lost essential skills

[RT Clay]

The callsign requirement is clearly stated in the SS rules, look it up:

4. Contest Exchange: The required exchange consists of:


4.1. A consecutive serial number;
4.2. Precedence;
4.3. Your Callsign
4.4. Check
4.5. ARRL/RAC Section (click here for the official list)


I also noticed that the rules on the ARRL web page were recently changed to address the issue of operating more than 24 hours:

2.4. Scores will be calculated from contacts logged during the first 24 hours of operation.
Clarification: the intent of this rule is to limit operating time (listening or transmitting) to
24 hours. Contacts logged after 24 hours of operation will not be counted toward the
final score, there is no penalty for including those contacts in a submitted log, and the
station contacted is eligible to receive credit for the contact.

As of October 24, 2.4 used to just say (thanks Internet Wayback Machine!):

2.4 All entries may operate no more than 24 of the 30 hours.

Tor
N4OGW



----- Original Message -----
From: "ve4xt at mymts.net" <ve4xt at mymts.net>
To: David Siddall <hhamwv at gmail.com>
Cc: "cq-contest at contesting.com" <cq-contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2013 2:51 PM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Automation = lost essential skills

I remember the lengthy discussion, and IIRC, there was no consensus: namely, that the inclusion of a sample wasn't necessarily an indication that the rules demanded it. 

However, I like the use of the example and it kinda throws me when an op omits his call (having already sent it), but I do not know of any operators who receive any kind of sanction for same.

73, Kelly
ve4xt

Sent from my iPhone

> On Nov 21, 2013, at 12:12, "David Siddall" <hhamwv at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Kelly,
> 
> You are right in my book too.  But one exception is sweepstakes.  I don't
> know the rationale, but some years ago the ARRL contest manager ruled that
> in sweepstakes only discrete complete exchanges are allowed.  This extra
> requirement doesn't seem to appear explicitly in the current rules (at
> least that I can find), but I remember a lengthy thread on the subject on
> this reflector.
> 
> Example 1:  NOT PERMITTED even though all required exchange information
> transmitted & received.
> 
> VE4XT:  CQ CQ SS de VE4XT
> K3ZJ:     K3ZJ
> VE4XT:   K3ZJ 145 A 66 MB
> 
> Example 2: Required exchange necessitates repeating call.
> 
> VE4XT:  CQ CQ SS de VE4XT
> K3ZJ:     K3ZJ
> VE4XT:   K3ZJ 145 A VE4XT 66 MB
> 
> 73, Dave K3ZJ
> 
> *-.-. --.-*
> 
> *ve4xt at mymts.net <http://mymts.net>* ve4xt at mymts.net
> <cq-contest%40contesting.com?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BCQ-Contest%5D%20Automation%20%3D%20lost%20essential%20skills&In-Reply-To=%3CSNT401-EAS3295C25EFCA570A4A15549AFEE10%40phx.gbl%3E>
> *Wed Nov 20 22:27:59 EST 2013*
> 
> That depends. If the receiving station heard the callsign, then the
> callsign was sent, even if people who came late to the frequency
> didn't hear it.
> 
> An example:
> 
> qrz, w1xyz
> (vy2zm and g3tuc are now listening and know who is on frequency.
> (IOW, they've heard w1xyz send his call))
> vy2zm
> vy2zm 599 05
> 599 05
> tu
> g3tuc
> g3tuc 599 05
> 599 14
> tu
> k1zz
> k1zz 599 05
> CL?
> w1xyz
> r w1xyz 599 05
> 
> In my book, all three QSOs are legit. Everybody received w1xyz's call.
> 
> Am I right?
> 
> 73, Kelly
> ve4xt
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest