[RTTY] RST SARTG RTTY

[John Merrill]

Not sure how they would enforce this unless they they came across one
themselves and noticed they were not giving out RST to others. One of them
, by the way, was not signing /x as they were not in the area their call
sign designated, so maybe they would DQ him anyways.

John N1JM


On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 1:37 PM, Gary AL9A <al9a at mtaonline.net> wrote:

> I agree not sending RST when required by the rules makes the contact
> invalid, but...
>
> Most logging programs will automatically fill in the 599 for each QSO.  If
> we work one of these short cut artists should we then delete the default
> 599 entry and submit the log with the missing field?  That will render the
> QSO invalid for my log, but what about his?  If he is logging 599 for each
> QSO without actually sending the numbers, who corrects his log?  If he
> isn't sending the RST on each entry the entire log should be disallowed,
> but how will the contest sponsors determine this?
>
> 73,
> Gary AL9A
>
>
> -----Original Message----- From: John Merrill
> Sent: August 18, 2013 11:31 AM
> To: Don Hill AA5AU
> Cc: rtty at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [RTTY] RST SARTG RTTY
>
> I had 2. One of them is a frequent participant high scoring rtty contester.
> I asked 4 times for RST before he finally figured it out. I suspect he
> might of had a guest operator. When I came across him later on he was still
> not giving RST. The second one ignored me and startred calling CQ again.
> Must of ticked him off :-).
>
> 73, John N1JM
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 9:17 AM, Don Hill AA5AU <aa5au at bellsouth.net>
> wrote:
>
>  Didn't get any of those this time, but yes, they are not valid contacts
>> without RST.
>>
>> 73, Don AA5AU
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: RTTY [mailto:rtty-bounces@**contesting.com<rtty-bounces at contesting.com>]
>> On Behalf Of John Merrill
>> Sent: Friday, August 16, 2013 11:28 PM
>> To: rtty at contesting.com
>> Subject: [RTTY] RST SARTG RTTY
>>
>> Couple of stations not sending RST with the exchange. Isn't that against
>> the rules?
>>
>> 73, John N1JM
>>
>> ______________________________**_________________
>> RTTY mailing list
>> RTTY at contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/**mailman/listinfo/rtty<http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty>
>>
>>
>>  ______________________________**_________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/**mailman/listinfo/rtty<http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty>
> ______________________________**_________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/**mailman/listinfo/rtty<http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty>
>