[CQ-Contest] "It's just to save on typing"

Fri Oct 20 14:33:54 EDT 2017

If that is the point, then that should be the rule. Why have a rule
that is contrary to the intent of the rule? If there was contention
for the #1 spot, and #1 made up a number and #2 did not, shouldn't #2
petition the judges to DQ #1 for not following the rules, on the basis
that it takes less time for #1 to send 55 instead of the year he was
first licensed, which might be 00? And, if 55 gives one a small
advantage, then perhaps everyone can send 55! The fact that ARRL
doesn't check certain things is policy, not a rule, and can change at
any time.

On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 1:20 PM, Kelly Taylor <ve4xt at mymts.net> wrote:
> Actually, the ARRL has said the intent of the rule was to provide a means for including a two-digit element in the exchange similar to the header on a message, not necessarily to get people to send the year they were licensed. Year of license was a convenient, easily understood meme.
>
> If the point is to test your ability to copy what’s sent rather than accepting what’s in your SCP file, wouldn’t you welcome a station changing his check?
>
> 73, kelly, ve4xt
>
>
>> On Oct 20, 2017, at 12:14 PM, Ron Notarius W3WN <wn3vaw at verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>> I'm right?  Really?
>>
>> Please, I need that in writing, properly notarized.  Two copies -- one for my wife, one for my ex-wife.  (No point in giving one to my mother-in-law, she wouldn't believe it anyway!)
>>
>> Seriously, though...
>>
>> Iff the rules are clear, why does this argument, er, discussion seem to come up almost every year?  What's next, the argument, er, discussion over "assisted" operating?
>>
>> And the real point is, yes, the ARRL has said it doesn't matter, as long as you are consistent.  In other words, if you make an honest error, or pick a check for any other reason, they won't penalize you.  Even so, the intent of the rules is clear.
>>
>> I understand why some are trying to "defeat" those who are copying from a database of past endeavors,  Which also means that they are, technically, breaking the rules.  Isn't that just as bad?  Where does it end?
>>
>> 73, ron W3WN
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Kelly Taylor <ve4xt at mymts.net>
>> To: Ron Notarius W3WN <wn3vaw at verizon.net>
>> Cc: cq-contest <cq-contest at contesting.com>
>> Sent: Fri, Oct 20, 2017 12:49 pm
>> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] "It's just to save on typing"
>>
>> You’re right, Ron, the rules are clear: ARRL has final say. ARRL has said it really doesn’t matter. We can officially stop the hand-wringing!
>>
>> 73, kelly, ve4xt
>>
>> > On Oct 20, 2017, at 11:05 AM, Ron Notarius W3WN <wn3vaw at verizon.net <mailto:wn3vaw at verizon.net>> wrote:
>> >
>> > The rules are vague on the SS check? Really?
>> >
>> >
>> > When operating as an individual, it should be the year YOU were first licensed. Even if you are "borrowing" someone's shack.
>> >
>> >
>> > If it is a multi-single effort, it should be the year that the HOST was first licensed. In the case of a club station, that would be the year that the CLUB was first licensed.
>> >
>> >
>> > Nothing vague about that.
>> >
>> >
>> > OK, so the rules may not have been written with iron-clad legal-type precision years ago. We could always hire attorneys to scrutinize the rules to make them so precise that their ought to be no ambiguity... of course there always will be, in the minds of some, but that's beside the point... but then, who would read 150 pages of rules in legalese? Plain English ought to be more than adequate.
>> >
>> >
>> > IMHO there is no ambiguity. The intent of the rules is clear.
>> >
>> >
>> > 73, ron W3WN
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Kelly Taylor <ve4xt at mymts.net <mailto:ve4xt at mymts.net>>
>> > To: Michael Clarson <wv2zow at gmail.com <mailto:wv2zow at gmail.com>>
>> > Cc: James Cain <jamesdavidcain at gmail.com <mailto:jamesdavidcain at gmail.com>>; CQ contest reflector <cq-contest at contesting.com <mailto:contest at contesting.com>>
>> > Sent: Fri, Oct 20, 2017 11:58 am
>> > Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] "It's just to save on typing"
>> >
>> > The difficulty with being obstinate about following rules to the letter is situations vary and rules are often vague. The check is certainly in that category.If you are a guest op, is it YOUR year of first licence or your host’s? If you’re using his callsign, using your check muddles matters. If it’s a multiop, whose check? If you were to follow the rules to the letter, you might have each op giving out his own check (it’s not exactly clear when all it says is “the year you were first licensed.”)Further: the rules also state quite clearly “the decisions of the ARRL are final.” The ARRL has decided it will not enforce checks (pretty hard to do, anyway). (Which is not the same as saying you get away with miscopying a check, merely the League will take no steps to determine if VE4XT really was first licensed in 1982. (I was.))So, if you’re obstinate about following rules and the rules say the ARRL decisions are final, then you must accept there is some deliberate vagueness to the rule and stop worrying about it.73, kelly, ve4xt > On Oct 20, 2017, at 9:05 AM, Michael Clarson <wv2zow at gmail.com <mailto:wv2zow at gmail.com>> wrote:> > Have to agree with James. Rules pretty clear on what the exchange is.> Check is"year first licensed", not some two digit number I made up to> change things up. --Mike, WV2ZOW> > On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 8:23 AM, <jamesdavidcain at gmail.com <mailto:jamesdavidcain at gmail.com>> wrote:>> Lessee, now. This discussion began concerning the ARRL Sweepstakes>> contest(s).>> >> Seems to me that a legitimate entry must follow the rules for the exchange,>> and those rules are specific. I don't see where any of the exchange elements>> can be fudged, or "negotiated.">> >> If you don't plan to submit your SS log you can fudge anything you want -->> except your call sign. But that's not playing fair.>> >> K1TN>> >> >> 4.1. A consecutive serial number;>> >> 4.2. Precedence;>> >> 4.2.1. "Q" for Single Op QRP (5 Watts output or less);>> >> 4.2.2. "A" for Single Op Low Power (up to 150 W output);>> >> 4.2.3. "B" for Single Op High Power (greater than 150 W output);>> >> 4.2.4. "U" for Single Op Unlimited Single-Op Unlimited High Power and>> Single-Op Unlimited Low Power both send "U")>> >> 4.2.5. "M" for Multi-Op (Multiop High Power and Multiop Low Power both send>> "M")>> >> 4.2.6. "S" for School Club;>> >> 4.3. Your Callsign (remember that you must include your call sign during the>> exchange)>> >> 4.4. Check>> >> 4.4.1. The last 2 digits of the year of first license for either the>> operator or the station.>> >> 4.4.2. An entry must send the same Check throughout the entire contest.>> >> 4.5. ARRL/RAC Section (click here for the official list>> <http://www.arrl.org/contest-sections-list <http://www.arrl.org/contest-sections-list>> )>> >> >> >> ----------->> >> I've been meaning to change things up anyway, just to keep them on their>> toes.>> >> 73>> Ria, N2RJ>> On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 4:31 PM Art Boyars <artboyars at gmail.com <mailto:artboyars at gmail.com>> wrote:>> >>> When I saw the post about Call History Files for SS, and then saw the post>>> for the site where you can get them, I was tempted to put in some bogus>>> data -- change CK 60 to CK 69; change name Art to name Ari. But I'm not>>> quite that cranky. Yet.>>> >>> 73, Art K3KU>>> >>> On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 12:48 AM, Radio K0HB <kzerohb at gmail.com <mailto:kzerohb at gmail.com>> wrote:>>> >>>> Where possible, I routinely "update" my exchange from the last contest,>>>> just to confound those who use "pre-loaded" data file crutches.>>>> >>>> 73, de Hans, K0HB>>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- From: Art Boyars>>>> Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2017 9:01 PM>>>> To: CQ-Contest Reflector>>>> Subject: [CQ-Contest] "It's just to save on typing">>>> >>>> E-mail chatting with N4ZR, who has relocated from WV to MD. Pete muses>>>> that a lot of people who rely on SCP or Call History (or whatever it is)>>>> "to save on typing" will bust the QSO by logging him as WV.>>>> >>>> I can see it now -- a cry for making the data files official; perhaps>>>> prohibiting people from relocating or using a different name.>>>> >>>> "All participants must register in the official Call History File. Your>>>> log must contain the data as reported in that File. Scoring will be in>>>> accordance with that File.">>>> >>>> Just think of all the typing we'll save!>>>> >>>> 73, Art K3KU>>>> who hopes you took this in fun (sort of)>>>> _______________________________________________>>>> CQ-Contest mailing list>>>> CQ-Contest at contesting.com <mailto:Contest at contesting.com>>>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest <http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest>>>>> >>> _______________________________________________>>> CQ-Contest mailing list>>> CQ-Contest at contesting.com <mailto:Contest at contesting.com>>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest <http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest>>>> >> _______________________________________________>> CQ-Contest mailing list>> CQ-Contest at contesting.com <mailto:Contest at contesting.com>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest <http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest>>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________>> CQ-Contest mailing list>> CQ-Contest at contesting.com <mailto:Contest at contesting.com>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest <http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest>> _______________________________________________> CQ-Contest mailing list> CQ-Contest at contesting.com <mailto:Contest at contesting.com>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest_______________________________________________CQ-Contest <http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest_______________________________________________CQ-Contest> mailing listCQ-Contest at contesting.comhttp <mailto:Contest at contesting.comhttp>://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > CQ-Contest mailing list
>> > CQ-Contest at contesting.com <mailto:Contest at contesting.com>
>> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest <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