[UK-CONTEST] 1st 1.8Mhz - This weekend

Tue Feb 9 11:11:05 PST 2010

Andy

As an ex-pro myself,  I'd agree with you 100% - when you're engaged in 
service or commercial traffic and not being marked in a contest by a 
machine which has been programmed to look for a formula.  I know for a 
fact that logging /QRP has lost the QSO - you can argue whether this is 
right or wrong but it does happen. 

In a contest, it is only appropriate to log what is either the exchange 
mandated by the rules, or perhaps looks suspiciously like it.  I think 
we are mainly arguing over whether one should log the area code from OE, 
PA or others, as well as their serial (which is likely to have counted 
QSOs from more than one contest, but no bother there).

The fact that adjudication software is capable of assembling virtual 
logs and taking a view on whether a received exchange from a station who 
has not submitted a log is all well and good, as long as this activity 
is restricted to participants in the contest under adjudication.  
Extending this principle to stations who are engaged in another contest 
altogether and sending an exchange in their own format is another 
example of the tail wagging the dog in my view. 

73, Peter G3LET

Andy Chadwick wrote:

>The right way is to log what is actually sent. (ask any professional CW
>operator).
>That includes callsigns "as sent" in full.  Including any /T /P /A /MM /1
> /QRP - whatever.
>
>The sending station and *only* the sending station determines what his
>callsign and traffic
>are.
>
>Anything else is conjecture and guessing on the part of the receiving
>station operator.
>
>I have heard the argument many times that ham operators shouldn''t log /QRP
> or
>certain exchanges which are perceived as being incorrect or illegal. The
>sending station
>is best placed to determine the validity of that, not a distant receive
>operator. Even if
>the exchange is misguided or incorrect (per licences) it should be recorded
>as sent.
>
>A log should  be an *accurate* record of the activity which took place.
>If it doesn't fit in a computer log or isn't what the receive operator would
>like
>to hear, it doesn't alter the fact of the actual telegraphic exchange.
>
>It's that simple.
>
>73,  Andy   ZC4VJ
>
>
>
>On 9 February 2010 11:16, Rob - G4LMW <g4lmw at btconnect.com> wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Yes Quin
>>
>>I obviously was referring to receiving what is clearly meant to be the
>>contest exchange that the other party sends.
>>
>>Perhaps my "crazy banana" example was a little excessive, but you knew what
>>I meant!
>>
>>73, Rob
>>G4LMW
>>http://www.G4LMW.co.uk
>>
>>
>>
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: "QUENTIN COLLIER" <q.g.collier at btinternet.com>
>>To: "Rob - G4LMW" <g4lmw at btconnect.com>; "UK Contest Reflector"
>><uk-contest at contesting.com>
>>Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 9:10 AM
>>Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] 1st 1.8Mhz - This weekend
>>
>>
>>With one caveat, I vote for the "log what you receive" approach. That
>>caveat
>>is that you have to be sensible about it.....log what is obviously meant by
>>the other end as part of the contest exchange, but if he sends his name,
>>QTH
>>etc. then (unless that is what the rules call for of course) disregard
>>that!
>>
>>73,
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Quin G3WRR
>>
>>
>>
>>----- Original Message ----
>>From: Rob - G4LMW <g4lmw at btconnect.com>
>>To: UK Contest Reflector <uk-contest at contesting.com>
>>Sent: Tuesday, 9 February, 2010 7:23:29
>>Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] 1st 1.8Mhz - This weekend
>>
>>Thanks Paul
>>
>>On a serious note, do "most of us" agree that we should not log what we
>>receive?
>>
>>I would be very interested to get a "straw poll" from others (off-list if
>>preferred).
>>
>>73, Rob
>>G4LMW
>>
>>
>>
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: "Paul O'Kane" <pokane at ei5di.com>
>>To: "UK Contest Reflector" <uk-contest at contesting.com>
>>Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 12:43 AM
>>Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] 1st 1.8Mhz - This weekend
>>
>>
>>    
>>
>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>From: "Rob - G4LMW" <g4lmw at btconnect.com>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>But the purpose of a contest is to record exactly what
>>>>was exchanged. If the other guy sends "599 crazy banana",
>>>>that is what you should log.
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>Really? That comment says it all!
>>>
>>>Most of us know better.
>>>
>>>73,
>>>Paul EI5DI
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>UK-Contest mailing list
>>>UK-Contest at contesting.com
>>>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest
>>>      
>>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>UK-Contest mailing list
>>UK-Contest at contesting.com
>>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>UK-Contest mailing list
>>UK-Contest at contesting.com
>>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest
>>
>>    
>>
>_______________________________________________
>UK-Contest mailing list
>UK-Contest at contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest
>
>
>  
>

-- 
Peter Hobbs
Business Area Manager, Communications
Drumgrange Ltd.

Tel: +44 (1932) 581113
Fax: +44 (1932) 569646
email: phobbs at drumgrange.co.uk <mailto:phobbs at drumgrange.co.uk>
www.drumgrange.com <http://www.drumgrange.com>

HQ Office:
The Forum
Hanworth Lane
Surrey  KT16 9JX
United Kingdom

Home Office:
Tel: +44 (1444) 400750
email: peter at tilgate.co.uk <mailto:peter at tilgate.co.uk>

This message has been sent from my Home Office.  It has been scanned 
using the latest available Virus Database.  However, as new viruses may 
appear at any time, Drumgrange Ltd. does not accept responsibility for 
any that may remain.