[UK-CONTEST] Club Calls

[David G3YYD]

Like to point out that the club name is VARC or should I type Verulam 
ARC or Verulam Amateur Radio Club.

VARC continues to whole heartedly support this delightful contest by 
running two VARC club stations, G3VER and GX8VER.

David G3YYD, member of VARC

On 15/11/2010 10:02, Chris G3SJJ wrote:
> I am most amused by the discussions on this contest. It seems to me that there is a severe case of the tail wagging the dog!!
>
> This event was originally devised and run by the Verulam (St Albans) Radio Society and then taken on by RSGB HFCC about 25 to 30 years ago. All well
> before computer logging was around. It was very firmly a paper logging exercise using standard RSGB issue log sheets and separate dupe sheets. I
> adjudicated in several times in the late 80s, it kept me entertained over a few winter's evenings. I was never interested in the "suffix" eg&  DARC,
> ARS etc but I did penalise the entrant if they couldn't be bothered to spell the same word correctly 2 or 3 times! Farnborough, Farmbrough, Reading,
> Redding etc.
>
> For the Q volume and rate, computer logging is hardly worth it. The main requirement is a source of serial numbers and dupe checking.
>
> Seems to me the decision has to be taken whether the rules should be changed to accomodate not only computer logging but now it seems actual log
> submission.
>
> If everyone is happy for computerisation to take over the character of this contest then let it go ahead but I can't see that you can have it both ways.
>
> 73 Chris G3SJJ
>
>
>
>
> On 14/11/2010 17:52, Paul O'Kane wrote:
>> On 14/11/2010 16:56, dave wrote:
>>> If other loggers can't hack it, that is no reason to change the
>>> exchange  and permit abbreviations.
>> My point is that abbreviations are already permitted
>> in the log. Not only are they are permitted, they are
>> recommended by the RSGB, the contest organisers.
>>
>> As a result, what was sent and what you log are, in
>> most cases, two different things.  The integrity of
>> the event has therefore been compromised because some
>> entrants are likely to send the abbreviations since
>> that is all the receiving station has to log - it is
>> pointless sending redundant information in contests,
>> and even more pointless having rules that expect
>> entrants to do so.
>>
>>> The problem has been for Organisers in each Club to get all its Members
>>> to send the official name,
>> "Official names" may be wishful thinking.  For example,
>> one club is listed in the table of abbreviations
>> www.rsgbcc.org/hf/clubcalls.xls as READING AMATEUR RADIO
>> CLUB, and the corresponding abbreviation is READING ARC.
>> However, its name, according to the latest yearbook, is
>> Reading And District Amateur Radio Club.
>>
>> Who is going to say what the "official" names are, and
>> who is going to verify that each and every one of them
>> is actually sent in full on-air?   And why should clubs
>> with long names be penalised in each and every QSO,
>> simply because they have a long name?  Wouldn't standard
>> 5-character abbreviations be fairer to everyone?
>>
>> Here's a suggestion for making logging simpler.  Since
>> only official club callsigns are permitted, it is a
>> simple task to make up a reference list showing callsign,
>> club name, and a unique 5-character abbreviation, which
>> can be accommodated by all loggers.
>>
>> The only thing remaining, after the contest, is to
>> expand the logged abbreviation to the recommended
>> abbreviation.  But why bother?  Wouldn't it be better
>> to adopt standard club abbreviations (long enough to
>> be unique but no longer) for the same reason that
>> district codes are used in other RSGB contests?
>>
>> And if you answer "no", it's the long exchange that
>> makes Clubs Calls special, then why are abbreviations
>> already permitted.
>>
>> 73,
>> Paul EI5DI
> _______________________________________________
> UK-Contest mailing list
> UK-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest