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

[Andy Chadwick]

>
>  For example,
> /QRP is not recognised, by any licensing authority, as
> a required component of a callsign.
>

/QRP can be appended in some countries even though it may
not be a requirement. In the same way that /P is being appended
for portable operation even though it is not a necessary requirement in some
countries.

t would be virtually impossible for every operator in the world to know the
current licence
requirements and permissions for each licensing entity in the world. Other
countries
such as Argentina require the addition of provincial letters /D /E etc. to
indicate location for example.
The sending operator dictates his own callsign from his licence and local
operating arrangements.
It's not down to the receiving operator to determine callsign validity.

In NFD, it sometimes happens that individual stations
> or operators are not consistent with their use of /P.
> If the station signed /P on the first QSO, but not on
> a later QSO, it would be pointless not to log it as
> /P.
>

In this case it could be "evident" to the receiver that the sender has
omitted the /P.
However, it could be that the station is portable on the first day of the
contest and
has returned to his home station on day two. Who knows for sure? The
sender.
The best policy is to log what is actually sent.


>
In a contest, the receiving station is obliged to log
> only the relevent element(s) of the exchange.  I have
> an objection, and perhaps it's completely irrational,
> to logging exchange elements that are evidently wrong
> or superfluous.
>
> How do you determine what is wrong?  As an example, remember the callsigns
used by Phil, G3SWH in French Polynesia.

FO/G35WH from Austral Is. and FO/G35WH/P from Gambier Archipelago. They were
the callsigns issued, surely irrational?
A "clever" operator would have determined the typographical error made by
the issuing clerk and logged the callsigns
as FO/G3SWH and FO/G3SWH/P. Rational and logical but wrong.

Which is correct?

a) Logging the callsign or exchange *actually* sent by the operator
b) Logging the callsign or exchange that you think *ought* to be used?
c) Logging the callsign or exchange that a Magazine *thinks* you should
log?
d) Logging the callsign or exchange which seems that it *might* be the most
logical?

>
>
> Where, in any contest rules or in any licence, does it
> say a "misguided or incorrect" exchange should be recorded
> as sent?  Could it be that you are making this up as you
> go along.
>
> I don't think many contest rules refer to "misguided or incorrect"
exchanges.
Maybe that's how you classify them?  They are simply exchanges.
It seems that some operators are trying to tailor them or shoe-horn them to
fit specific contests and logging programs as they go along.

One is free to log whatever one likes, within national
licensing requirements, but
I am suggesting that what is recorded should be accurate and not merely a
perceived
version of what one would *like* to receive. This can include callsign,
zone, /P
 - any element of the exchange.


> > A log should  be an *accurate* record of the activity
> > which took place.
>
> Really?  So, when entrants in the RSGB 1.8 MHz contest
> mistakenly send their old 3-character county code, instead
> of the 2-character district code, the 3-character code
> should be recorded?  I don't think so.
>

I'd suggest that if you felt an error was made that you could challenge the
sender
or log the actual code as sent. Determining the code yourself might seem
like the right
thing for a smart operator to do, but it could be wrong. To make this
determination
purely because it won't fit into the given contest logging software or
because you know
that you might lose points is plain poor operating. It's fudging the issue.

If people are losing points for logging codes or exchanges as sent, then
there is a problem with the
adjudication process. This problem should not be allowed to undermine the
integrity of logging
what has actually been sent. This is the tail wagging dog scenario.


You may be interested to know that, in CQWW - the most
> popular contest in the world, when a station sends a
> zone that is obviously incorrect, entrants are advised
> to log the correct zone - not what was sent.  I can
> give precise references to back up this statement.
>

In that case there is no reason for most stations to bother sending
an accurate zone as it is being determined from the callsign prefix.

That cannot not always be relied upon however. UA9 stations are a classic
example as you
know. Zone 17, 18, 19?  You have to go with what is sent. If a KL7XYZ
station
sends zone 5, are they in zone 5 or have they made a mistake?  Should they
be zone 1 or zone 5?

CQ Magazine can specify that entrants log the "correct" zone rather than the
zone
being sent. It's their contest, but they can be wrong. If enough people log
the actual
wrong zone, does that then make it right?

>
> > 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.
>
> Is there any possibility that the "actual telegraphic
> message", whatever that means, could be wrong or just
> nonsense?  If so, what is the poor contester to do?
>
> Actual = real
Telegraphic = sent by telegraph (manually - Morse)
Message =  exchange of information.

Yes it could be wrong, it can be sent wrongly but that would
be the fault of the sender, not the receiver.

I think that the right thing for the poor contester to do is to accurately
log what is sent
not what he thinks "ought" to be sent.

I'm sure others will have other opinions, but that's my twopence worth -
FWIW.