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

Fri Oct 20 15:54:07 EDT 2017

I also fail to understand why people get angry that what is sent
doesn't match the prefills.

People move, people operate in different categories, and yes,
sometimes the date of licensing may change due to previous years'
errors.

The best approach is to copy what is sent. Period. Nothing else is
relevant. Just what is sent.

73
Ria, N2RJ

On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 3:39 PM, Michael Clarson <wv2zow at gmail.com> wrote:
> Ria: Glad you mentioned the "On their toes" comment was a joke -- its
> hard to tell sometimes in text only e-mail. Following the thread,
> there are those with that sentiment that are not joking. As you say,
> let common sense prevail. Copy what is sent, correct and verify any
> prefill if you are using them.
>
> To others following the thread: Perhaps someone can clarify:  I fail
> to understand why one would want to  confuse those using prefills by
> purposely changing information that is supposed to be an unchanging
> fact -- year first licensed. Requests for repeats slow both stations
> down. I guess we all contest for different reasons. --Mike, WV2ZOW
>
> On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 1:47 PM, Ria Jairam <rjairam at gmail.com> wrote:
>> The rules are always ambiguous.
>>
>> We've been through this with things like in-band CQing. It wasn't in
>> the rules - so it was "allowed" until it wasn't, because ARRL said
>> that it was never their intent to permit that practice.
>>
>> Some things go beyond the rules. Some are common sense. Not using
>> external sources for the data you're supposed to be copying on-air
>> seems like common sense. This is like running a race but using a
>> segway and thinking it's OK because that specific device is not
>> specifically prohibited.
>>
>>
>>
>> 73
>> Ria, N2RJ
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 12:05 PM, Ron Notarius W3WN <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>
>>> To: Michael Clarson <wv2zow at gmail.com>
>>> Cc: James Cain <jamesdavidcain at gmail.com>; CQ contest reflector <cq-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> 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> 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> )>> >> >> >> ----------->> >> 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> 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> 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>>>> 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>>> >> _______________________________________________>> 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> _______________________________________________> CQ-Contest mailing list> CQ-Contest at contesting.com> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest_______________________________________________CQ-Contest mailing listCQ-Contest at contesting.comhttp://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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