[UK-CONTEST] Time to ditch the signal report?

Thu Jun 28 03:47:31 PDT 2012

Yes do away with the RST in HF RSGB contests BUT have a true penalty for
mistakes unlike at present.
Busted call loose two extra qso points; RX or TX serial number mistakes loss
to the person that makes the mistake.
The Stew Perry contest does very well without an RST but cleverly uses
distance for the points structure.
	I would vote for dump the 21-28mhz and replace it with an  all band
Stew, then the RSGB would have a real contest. 73 Clive GM3POI 

-----Original Message-----
From: uk-contest-bounces at contesting.com
[mailto:uk-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Jim
Sent: 28 June 2012 10:31
To: mark.haynes at yahoo.co.uk; UK Contest Reflector
Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] Time to ditch the signal report?

Not sure UR makes too much sense. Okay in a contest with serial numbers 
going UR 001 etc. But in ARRL contest sending UR 400 or CQWW UR 14 makes no 
sense. Scrap the RS(T) but why replace it with something else. Self 
defeating.

73 Jim G3RTE

-----Original Message----- 
From: mark.haynes at yahoo.co.uk
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2012 11:01 AM
To: UK Contest Reflector
Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] Time to ditch the signal report?

Very good points, Roger.

I was going to say, as I think Roger SXW has pointed out in the past, that 
the signal report gives the QSO structure and rhythum. Replacing it with 
something else such as UR makes sense. The only remaining issue is to 
convince DXCC for their awards.

73,
Mark M0DXR
(Queuing at Pettits animal adventure park with a very excited 2 year old 
girl!)

Mark Haynes
Tel: 07917 223870
Email: mark.haynes at yahoo.co.uk
Skype: m0dxr_mark

-----Original Message-----
From: Roger Cooke <g3ldi at yahoo.co.uk>
Sender: uk-contest-bounces at contesting.com
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 10:46:32
To: dave at g4buo.com<dave at g4buo.com>; 
uk-contest at contesting.com<uk-contest at contesting.com>
Reply-To: Roger Cooke <g3ldi at yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] Time to ditch the signal report?

Hi.

Some RTTY contests do not require an RST or RSQ ( as it has also become 
known ) report, but rely
on just an exchange of certain "information", whether it be serial number, 
age, postcode, or whatever else
the rules require. In contests, the "report" is merely a prelude to the REAL

exchange necessary for the log.
The RS(T) is normally filled in already anyway in most contest loggers.  So,

in that respect, we could ditch
the RST, just send the exchange and leave it at that. Or, we could have 
another way of preparing the receiving
op for the exchange, a simple URS or even UR would suffice. That would 
silence the argument.

  Under contesting circumstances, RST becomes irrelevant and meaningless. To

retain it merely adds fodder

to the anti-contesters, and I can perfectly well understand their argument. 
We have no defence to a " 599 004
pse repeat all" message.

  The same applies to DX-peditions when all they are interested in is the 
Q-rate, understandably so. However,
when this is then carried over into everyday operation, with every G3 and W4

or whatever trying to emulate a
DX station by offering allcomers 5-9 it makes a complete mockery of the 
reporting system, something that we
should all try to abide by. After all, it is the very essence of 
communications. "What report did you get from

that VK station?"  Oh, 599 but it took about ten minutes to get my call sign

across to him, so cannot make
that out at all. My 5watts and dipole 4ft off the ground really is working 
well!!

Regards from Roger, G3LDI
Swardeston, Norfolk.

>________________________________
> From: "dave at g4buo.com" <dave at g4buo.com>
>To: uk-contest at contesting.com
>Sent: Thursday, 28 June 2012, 8:58
>Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] Time to ditch the signal report?
>
>As Dave knows, I sometimes give him 559 reports in RSGB 80m contests.
>
>It can be instructive when you hear a really bad signal (typically when
>beaming east) where the operator has deliberately introduced some AC or
>other nastiness into the TX signal to make it wide. Send them a report of
>595 and wait for the pause while they try and figure out what you just
>sent them.
>
>I would like to see a situation where contest checking software would
>recognise when stations were getting a lot of bad tone reports, and
>penalise the stations concerned. But I\'m not holding my breath.
>
>On a crowded HF band in a major contest it is perfectly possible for a
>station to be 59 when he calls you and gives his callsign, but very hard
>to copy when he gives the serial number due to adjacent QRM, including the
>nast signal mentioned above.
>
>I support having meaningful exchanges in HF contests, typically serial
>number, and feel it is a shame that the zone number in the CQ contests is
>very nearly meaningless. But that\'s the way it is and it doesn\'t stop
>the CQWW contests from being a lot of fun, and a great test of operator
>skill. I invite the VHF operators who doubt this statement to give it a
>try and see how they get on.
>
>For my part, I\'ll be on my once a year foray above 30MHz in VHF FD the
>weekend after next, but for me the main enjoyment of the weekend will be
>the consumption of large quantities of beer on the Friday evening. Each to
>his own!
>
>73, Dave G4BUO
>
>> Although RST may be redundant in contests, you must take into
>> consideration that many of us (most) also use QSOs made in contests to
>> chase various awards. Although it seems RST is not needed for DXCC
>> claims the same cannot be said for many other awards. What are we going
>> to do for QSLs for these QSOs, simply leave the RST boxes blank? And if
>> we are going to abandon it for contest QSOs, what about all the
>> DXpedition pileup QSOs where the report is all that is actually
>> exchanged - perhaps we just send our callsign, the other station
>> repeats it and says \'R\' or \'TU\' and you have to respond with 
>> similar...
>>
>> No, a report is an integral part of what is considered as a QSO and
>> should NOT be dropped. (and that is one of the reasons why I do NOT
>> enter the RSGB sprints, when I work somebody I want a report,
>> meaningful or not).
>>
>> 73 Dave G3YMC
>>
>> On 28 Jun 2012 at 8:51, Stewart Rolfe wrote:
>>
>>> All this fussing about 59(9) or \'correct\' signal reports seems
>>> irrelevant to me..... The point of a contest exchange is to copy
>>> correctly certain data - callsign, a serial number, locator or whatever.
>>> A signal report tells nothing pertinent to the contest situation, and on
>>> HF with perhaps 3 or 4 signals in your passband is impossible to judge
>>> per signal anyway; hence the customary \'599 - agn ur serial??\' 
>>> situation
>>> much ridiculed by non-contesters. So why don\'t the contest organisers
>>> bite the bullet and get rid of compulsory reports? Sending 599 for each
>>> contact flies in the face of the contest ethos where the idea is to
>>> avoid all redundant information which the 599 most definitely is. It
>>> works in the Sprints despite the occasional plea from some that
>>>  the 599 is useful as a cue for the following \'important\' information.

>>> I
>>> think everyone if arguing about the wrong thing......
>>
>>
>> http://www.davesergeant.com
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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 

_______________________________________________
UK-Contest mailing list
UK-Contest at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest

=======
Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found.
(Email Guard: 9.0.0.888, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.20030)
http://www.pctools.com/
=======