[UK-CONTEST] UBN failures

[Roger Thawley]

David,
	I think this is where the distinction between HF and VHF contesting
is apparent. For a VHF contest, where weak signals are a regular, and
challenging, feature, the signal report may be useful information for
operators to have, so they may modify their operating procedures to best
effect - even if the signal report isn't that useful in terms of its
contribution to the 'exchange'.

Roger, G0BSU

-----Original Message-----
From: uk-contest-bounces at contesting.com
[mailto:uk-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of David G3YYD
Sent: 16 July 2011 14:06
To: UK-Contest at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] UBN failures

I see my 59 for all QSOs provoke the expected knee jerk re-action from 
some contesters. The HF contesters worked out long ago that the rules do 
not specify that the report has to be accurate. Even if the rules did, 
how is it enforceable? QED give 59 saves typing at both ends and hence 
removes a possibility of error in that part of the exchange.

Personally I think the RS(T) report should be removed from contests and 
some do just that. It is the serial number and locator code that is the 
real exchange in a VHF+ contest. Even the locator code can come from a 
call history file so that leaves the serial number as being the really 
unique part of the exchange.

73 David G3YYD

PS just seen Stewart's post in similar vain.



_______________________________________________
UK-Contest mailing list
UK-Contest at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1390 / Virus Database: 1516/3767 - Release Date: 07/15/11