[CQ-Contest] Automation = lost essential skills

Thu Nov 21 17:45:28 EST 2013

David is correct. 
The five elements are required, but sequence is inconsequential. 

This is proven by the validity of QSOs where you must walk the a casual op through it. 

They count as much as any other. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Nov 21, 2013, at 16:41, "David Siddall" <hhamwv at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> The requirement is that the 5 elements you list be exchanged.  There is no explicit requirement as to order of conveyance, only an example. We all understand that as a practical matter using the order in the example facilates the exchange and therefore use it. It is to our advantage to do so, this is a timed competition and speed of exchange is paramount.  Correctly or incorrectly, I remember an ARRL contest manager opining that the order is required, but IMHO that opinion has not been incorporated into the rules, nor should it. To borrow from a recent CQWW thread, should an op be DQed for walking a "Sunday driver" through the exchange information without requiring the Sunday drive to perform the difficult task of parrotting back all 5 elements in the requisite order in the same breath? That's the only foolish result that a mandatory element order would accomplish.  Why would anyone want that in Sweepstakes, which seeks to attract participation?
> 
> 73, Dave K3ZJ
> 
> 
>> On Nov 21, 2013, at 5:00 PM, RT Clay <rt_clay at bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> 
>> 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
>> 